# [L&FP 39:] Implication logic is pivotal to understanding how we think as duty-bound rational creatures

In recent months we have had several forum threads, which naturally tend to throw up onward topics worth headlining. Here, I will headline some observations on implication logic in deductive and in inductive reasoning.

However, first, the core of the logic of implication.

Algebraically, p => q is analysed as ~[p AND ~q]. Interpreted, for whatever reason, p being so is sufficient for q to also be so. This compound proposition does NOT assert that p, only that p is sufficient for q. Similarly, q is NECESSARY for p, i.e. if q can be false and p true, q is not implied by p.

As a bare structure, this is termed material implication, fleshing out the why of the implication brings in issues of cause, logic of being, mathematical relations, semantics, imposed conditions in a process flow etc.

As a subtlety, if we apply this structure to the classic syllogism,

A: Socrates is a man
B: Men are mortal
_____________________
C: Socrates is mortal

. . . we will see that p = [A AND B] with p => q entails that

[A => q and/or B => q ]

It turns out, yes. The propositions in the syllogism overlap and interact, one draws out and applies a meaning implicit in the other. The set, men is a subset of the set, mortals. That Socrates is a man only stipulates that Socrates is a member of that subset of mortals. Socrates is a man is sufficient for his mortality, and Men are mortal is sufficient for any particular case of man to be mortal. Syllogisms and implications interact in unexpected ways, sometimes. But that is where insights surface.

Yes, too, a similar analysis can be done on the truth table equivalent form, ~p AND/OR q; as is shown. (I here emphasise the inclusive or rather than the exclusive one [XOR], vel not aut as Latin distinguishes.)

The second form surfaces a hidden property, the principle of explosion.

A false antecedent, p, can and does often entail a true consequent q; however it is also prone to imply false ones. A true antecedent will only imply true consequents. That is a key property, truth preservation. Also, this is where ex falso quodlibet comes from: when p is [x AND ~x], it materially entails anything, becoming an expression of meaninglessness. That said, in modelling we often pose a “simplified” antecedent to derive correct results in a tested zone of reliability.

That becomes important in science and engineering. In the latter as models are a major design technique. In science as we see that hypotheses and theories are not shown to be strictly true by predictive success, only to be empirically reliable in a given domain of successful testing. Our confidence in theories ought to be tempered by the concept that a scientific law, hypothesis or theory boils down to being at best an empirically reliable, possibly true model. Sometimes, not even that. (The pessimistic induction that across times many grand theories generally taken as true failed empirically, beckons.)

With that in mind, we now may clip our comment of interest, to see how implication works out on the ground so to speak. Here, I assert that “[t]he role of implication logic is central, both as proof structure and explanation structure.” Expanding:

[Law/Duty thread, 1184;] Where, p => q, we are often tempted to reason
p => q but I reject q, so I reject p,
however, when p is self-evident, that rejection clings to absurdity:
I reject p, but p is self evident means ~p is absurd [in various ways]

However, we can arbitrarily redefine terms, manipulate opinion, play lawfare, build up corrupted systems and the like to support ~p, especially when entrenched interests and ideological agendas are at stake. History since 1789 and especially from 1917 speaks on this in rivers of blood and tears.

Such leads to a breakdown of rationality, organisations, societies and more.

Likewise, where q is a composite of observations o1, o2 . . . on
We may ask, which p currently best explains such of p1, p2 . . . pm
At an earlier stage, we may examine the set of observations to sketch out possible explanations.

This is abductive reasoning, a key form of modern sense inductive logic.

We propose criteria of ranking, typically tied to factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power [ elegantly simple, not simplistic or ad hoc]

This introduces issues of discernment and judgement as is typical of inductive reasoning

In this process, self evident first principles and duties are involved but are not generally sufficient to determine the overall decision. Prudence becomes pivotal and so the habitual discipline to build it up is vital to intellectual thriving.

Factual adequacy is an appeal to truth [and, when is a claimed fact so is material].

Coherence is an appeal to right reason and principles of logic including distinct identity and close corollaries non contradiction and excluded middle.

Explanatory balance involves discernment and the whole involves prudence including the judgement when a conclusion is well warranted.

So, when such are systematically undermined in a culture, the ability to think reliably and soundly is undermined.

For practical import, look all around.

We now see how first duties of reason pervade real world rational inference. First, in logic of implication, with p as a self-evident truth as a key special case. If you doubt the reality of self-evidence, let me add a further clip to show by example that self-evident truths do exist:

[Laws/duties, 1172:] 1] || + ||| –> |||||, symbolically, 2 + 3 = 5; undeniable on pain of absurdity and demonstrating that the class is non-empty. Split your fingers into a two set and a three set, join them as a five set.

2] The Josiah Royce proposition: E – error exists. This is manifestly familiar from sums exercises with red X’s. But it is not just a massively empirically supported truth and one that is a general consensus. It is undeniable. Let the denial be ~E. Already to assert ~E entails, it would be an error to assert E. So, undeniably, E. E is true, undeniably, necessarily, self evidently true. It is also warranted to incorrigible certainty. It is empirically discoverable and a widespread consensus. It is known truth. Accordingly, general skepticism denying possibility of knowledge, fails. So do radical relativism and subjectivism, which deny the possibility of objectively warranted and undeniably demonstrated knowledge.

3] Moral case study and yardstick I: it is self evidently wrong, willfully wicked, inherently criminal and evil to kidnap, bind, sexually torture and murder a young child for one’s pleasure. Those who deny or dismiss or evade this do not overthrow the truth, they simply reveal their absurdities or worse. This also shows that the weak and inarticulate have rights and are owed justice. Might does not make right, manipulation does not make rights out of thin air.

Next, in abductive form inductive reasoning. The evaluation of which candidate explanation best accounts for empirical observations draws on appeals to first duties of reason even more intensely than deductive forms that rely on our implicitly accepted duties to truth and rationality, prudence and so too warrant.

Yes, things are that dire. We need to go back to and start afresh from clarifying ABC first principles to sort out where we are; when as a civilisation we ought instead to have long since been a shining example and teacher to the world. END

PS: Just to make it crystal clear where this leads, first the plumb line test:

So, too, for example, we see the first truths of logic:

And, here are more, set in the context of first duties of reason . . . unlike a computer or a rock, we can choose to disregard logic, truth, prudence etc:

Inescapable? The objector, to gain rhetorical traction invariably appeals to our implicit recognition of the first duties, and the one who tries to prove them does so too. These are therefore first duties that pervade reasoning and by and large move us to acknowledge them (save when it is too inconvenient).

## 232 Replies to “[L&FP 39:] Implication logic is pivotal to understanding how we think as duty-bound rational creatures”

1. 1
kairosfocus says:

Implication logic is pivotal to understanding how we think as duty-bound rational creatures

2. 2
kairosfocus says:

Also, if one self-evident truth exists, then self-evident truths exist. So, if p in p => q is a SET, then if one tries to object ~q so ~p, one resorts to absurdity. Not surprisingly, many ideologies do just that. KF

PS: Obviously, SET’s are plumb-line guaranteed upright and straight, testing our crooked yardsticks and crooked walls.

3. 3
William J Murray says:

Where KF’s argument fails:

3] Moral case study and yardstick I: it is self evidently wrong, willfully wicked, inherently criminal and evil to kidnap, bind, sexually torture and murder a young child for one’s pleasure.

You have not established that statement as self-evidently true in the same manner that one can establish “A=A” or “2+2=4” as self-evidently true. Those things are self-evidently true because rational existence itself fundamentally relies on those truths. You can’t make an argument against without using them.

So far, you have not made the case that it is self-referentially absurd to not consider such an act immoral or evil; it appears you are relying on a (near) universal psychological reaction to the statement to make it appear as if it is “self-evidently true.”

I’m not saying you cannot make your case, but a (near) universal psychological reaction does not a self-evidently true statement make.

4. 4
kairosfocus says:

WJM, moral SETs work differently from mathematical or logical ones. A moral absurdity is just as absurd and far more repulsive than the former two. As noted, one who objects to the manifest evil of a case as cited does not change us to believe, no, the case is not evil or is doubtful; conscience — unless half-dead, does not permit that; and conscience is so big a part of our conscious mindedness that to hold it generally delusional is to discredit our minds as hopelessly prone to delusion. Such would undermine rationality, logic, math, knowledge and more. The voice of sound conscience, or else absurdity. Similar to, the message of our eyes or ears on the whole, or else absurdity; yes, there is room for illusions and occasional errors, but not for wholesale hyperskeptical dismissiveness, i.e. we are at Thomas Reid’s common sense and the principle of credulity. Such an objector, therefore, simply shows that s/he is at best morally defective. This is a case where the word magic of skepticism to create a doubt fails. KF

PS: Observe here, how the 56 US founders used this to frame sound government:

When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God [–> natural law context is explicit] entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 – 21, 2:14 – 15; note, law as “the highest reason,” per Cicero on received consensus], that all men are created equal [–> note, equality of humanity], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [–> thus there are correlative duties and freedoms framed by the balance], that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . .

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

To see, ponder the implications and revelations of the secrets of one’s heart that come of denying the right to life, to liberty, to one’s vision of one’s purpose and its pursuit. The first already declares you a potential murderer or accessory, the second, similar for tyranny, the third, for crushing the human spirit. This is of course also a time bomb on the slavery system.

5. 5
William J Murray says:

KF,
Your comment @ #4 doesn’t advance your case; it just further undermines it. When you appeal to what other people say to make your case, or appeal to consequences, or make emotional appeals against those who might challenge your argument, it seems like you realize you cannot actually make your case.

You can either make the case that the statement you offered is self-evidently true or not. To be self-evidently true means that it does not rely on any particular religious, spiritual or indeed any particular metaphysical context whatsoever; it would be unavoidably necessary in all such perspectives.

Unfortunately for your argument, the idea of an objective morality entirely relies on a particular set of religious/spiritual/metaphysical ideas for contextual support. It is the conclusion of those particular systems of thought. That is backwards of a what it is for something to be called a self-evident truth.

6. 6
kairosfocus says:

WJM, no. We are perfectly entitled to take conscience, consciousness, our eyes and ears seriously. Those who try to reduce our conscious rationality to grand delusion are opening the door to absurdity. Reidian common sense makes excellent sense. KF

7. 7
William J Murray says:

KF,
I didn’t say you couldn’t take them seriously. What I said is, you can’t make the case that such things are self-evidently true. You can build a case for a model based on how you interpret and understand those things that you experience, but that is not what it means for a thing to be considered “self-evidently true.”

Your model of morality (and conscience) is based on interpreting experience through a particular worldview that is required for that model to be valid. All possible worldviews do not require your your statement in the OP to be true to even get off the ground.

Therefore, you have not made the case that your statement in the OP is self-evidently true. I suspect you cannot.

8. 8
kairosfocus says:

F/N: Michael Davidson discusses what he terms Reid’s Razor, in effect a manifesto of defeasible but heuristically generally effective common good sense reasoning:

[Reidian Common good sense as definition and razor, 1785:] “that degree of judgement which is common to men with whom we can converse and transact business”

Davidson shrewdly points out,

Take a philosophical or scientific principle that is being applied to a particular situation: ask yourself whether you would be able to converse rationally and transact business with that person assuming that principle governed the situation or persons involved. If not dismiss the principle as erroneous or at least deeply suspicious. For example, suppose someone proposes that things-as-they-appear-to-be are not things-as-they-really-are. I do not think I would buy a used car from this man.

That seems a fair enough test of habitual adherence to first duties of reason — or otherwise.

We then see a list of defeatable, default rules of thumb for credulity vs skepticism:

1) Everything of which I am conscious really exists [–> at minimum as an object of conscious awareness, and often as a particular or abstract entity, the presumption is, if I perceive a world with entities, it is by and large real]
2) The thoughts of which I am conscious are the thoughts of a being which I call myself, my mind, my person.
3) Events that I clearly remember really did happen.
4) Our personal identity and continued existence extends as far back in time as we remember anything clearly.
5) Those things that we clearly perceive by our senses really exist and really are what we perceive them to be.
6) We have some power over our actions and over the decisions of our will.
7) The natural faculties by which we distinguish truth from error are not deceptive.
8) There is life and thought in our fellow-men with whom we converse.
9) Certain features of the face, tones of voice, and physical gestures indicate certain thoughts and dispositions of mind.
10) A certain respect should be accorded to human testimony in matters of fact, and even to human authority in matters of opinion.
11) For many outcomes that will depend on the will of man, there is a self-evident probability, greater or less according to circumstances.
12) In the phenomena of Nature, what happens will probably be like what has happened in similar circumstances.

According to Reid, anyone who doubts these principles will be incapable of rational discourse and those philosophers who profess to doubt them cannot do so sincerely and consistently. Each of these principles, if denied, can be turned back on the denier. For example, although it is not possible to justify the validity of memory (3) without reference to premises that rest on memory, to dispense with memory as usually unreliable is just not philosophically possible. Reid qualifies some of these principles as not applying in all cases, or as the assumptions that we presume to hold when we converse, which may be contradicted by subsequent experience. For instance with regard to (10) Reid believes that most men are more apt to over-rate testimony and authority than to under-rate them; which suggests to Reid that this principle retains some force even when it could be replaced by reasoning.

I endorse Reid’s principles as normally true and what we must assume to be true to engage in argument and discussion. But, as Reid acknowledges, not all may be true all the time. I thus see Reid’s principles as epistemological rather than metaphysical. Psychologists might point to such things as optical illusions, false memory, attentional blink, hallucinations and various other interesting phenomena which might throw some doubt over some of Reid’s assertions. But these are nonessential modifiers that if entertained as falsifications of these principles would lead to the collapse of all knowledge. Very few philosophers have not acknowledged that the senses can deceive us or that reason is fallible, but to say the senses consistently deceive or that reason is impotent is too big a sacrifice. That the senses can deceive and reason is fallible is good reason to be cautious in our conclusions but not a good reason to dispense with observation and reason all together.

That seems to me to be a useful backgrounder.

KF

9. 9
kairosfocus says:

WJM, kindly see the above and rule 7 i/l/o context. KF

10. 10
William J Murray says:

So, let me make a counter-argument about what conscience is, with logic that flows from an actual self-evident truth.

1. All free will choices are about preference.
2. Preferences, and how choices are made, stem from how the individual organizes, interprets and processes the available (either physical or imagined) options. We’ll call these choosing systems.
3. There are different kinds of choosing systems, ranging from the very basic, survival level (choosing to eat instead of going hungry, not walk off a cliff, hide when a predator is nearby, etc.) to the metaphysical level (choosing to not eat meat because of karma, or go to church to serve the Lord.)
4. Group (from the basic family to community and social) survival and success is one such choosing system. In such a system, there are direct personal preferences that are put on lower priority or abstained from to serve the greater preference of predicted better protection and survival that staying in the group affords us.
5. Thus, conscience is the naturally occurring tension which exists when a direct personal preference conflicts with more conceptual or abstract preferences, such as “success of the group” or metaphysical choosing systems, like avoiding bad karma or eternal damnation.

11. 11
kairosfocus says:

WJM, preference is ambiguous, many free will decisions are by duty against inclination, sometimes strikingly so. KF

12. 12
William J Murray says:

KF @8 quoted:

For example, suppose someone proposes that things-as-they-appear-to-be are not things-as-they-really-are. I do not think I would buy a used car from this man.

Then said:

That seems a fair enough test of habitual adherence to first duties of reason — or otherwise.

And yet, this is exactly what both self-evident truth (all experiences occur in mind) and quantum physics experimentation have clearly demonstrated; that things are not as they appear to us to be. Entirely mental experiences appear to us to be external of mind when they cannot be; what appears to us to be a material world governed by linear cause-and-effect relationships between real entities with intrinsic, identifiable characteristics is in fact not the case.

Best come up with a different set of “default rules,” KF. The ones you quote from Davidson have been shown to be both factually and logically in error.

Your logic above stems from a scientifically disproved and logically untenable premise, which also indicts your expositions of “common sense.” Valid “common sense” requires grounding in a sound context of premises. Lacking that, all “common sense” boils down to is “what most people think.”

Also, if you go about conducting any business based on the assumption that things are what they appear to be, I have a bridge in New York I’d be happy to sell you real cheap.

13. 13
William J Murray says:

KF @11,
Then one is more inclined (prefer) to do the duty, as I explained.

14. 14
kairosfocus says:

WJM, that is what has been promoted and used to create plausibility for hyperskepticism. In reality, our experience of the macro, slow-moving scale is the bulk of our experience and is reliable and real. That there is a micro scale that contributes to that macro reality is an onward analysis that is required, through the correspondence principle, to conform to it. That is far from reducing it to delusion. Beyond that, the defeatable defaults are not given as absolutes, overthrown by any exception, but as a pattern of the typical that may err in particular cases but on the whole tends to be so. Our sight, hearing, touch can err but are generally credible. The benefit of the doubt and burden to show otherwise [with caveat on grand delusion] rightly rest there. I remember breakfast, that I could err does not discredit memory on the whole; that would take down knowledge and rationality with it. likewise, sound conscience, which is where this exchange began. Our senses and judgement need not be infallible to have earned a right to be taken as generally credible. The alternative being absurd. Which does not reduce to logical incoherence. KF

15. 15
kairosfocus says:

WJM, oftentimes, one is most disinclined to do the duty but chooses because it is right. That is part of why I think preference language is not helpful. KF

16. 16

This is an intelligent design blog, and intelligent design is a subset of creationism. Intelligent design is the theory of how things are created, by intelligent design.

So presenting a creationist argument, as I do, you should listen to it, because the blog is based on creationism. For non creationist arguments, you have other blogs.

As I have been arguing many times, the concepts of subjectivity, personal opinion, emotions, are inherently creationist concepts.

Science is not about subjectivity, science is about facts. So one might think, that it doesn’t really matter to science to throw out subjectivity.

But it does matter a lot. Because without understanding of subjectivity, then you can’t know what your emotions are up to. Then your emotions take over behind the scenes of your argument, and you end up just asserting prejudices.

Throwing out subjectivity, then you get the kind of people who are lawyers for a particular position, trying to argue a case for their client, their client being their intellectual position. They will just say anything to promote the interest of their client, the truth be damned.

And because academic people are generally very smart, they think up brilliant arguments for their client. Arguments that are very persuasive, because the arguments are designed to be persuasive.

In throwing out creationism, academic people have lost the ability to prime their emotions for honesty. That is a skill, where you really need understanding of subjectivity, to do it.

The creationist conceptual scheme:

1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / fact

The concept of opinion is validated in category 1. The concept of fact is validated in category 2.

The two categories are connected by “choice”. The first category contains all what is doing the choosing, the second category contains all what is chosen.

Choice is the mechanism of creation, how a material thing originates. To choose means to make one of alternative futures the present. Simply put, there are the alternative futures A and B, alternative future A is made the present, meaning A is chosen. Choosing is anticipatory in regards to a future of possibilities. Choice does not operate based on cause and effect logic.

Choices are not based on preference, as people incorrectly state. To argue that choice is based on preference, means to confuse the good advise to think about what is best before you make a choice, with the definition of making a choice.

All choices without any exception, are essentially spontaneous. The spirit makes one of alternative futures the present, spontaneously. To think about what is the best option, that is done by a complicated way of choosing, involving several sub choices.

Emotions, feelings, personal character, the soul, the God, these are all defined in terms of that they make choices. Therefore they belong in category number 1. Therefore they can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

You feel what the personal character of someone is, and then you express those feelings, by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will.

To science the decisionmaking is all just randomness. In the moment the decision can turn out either A or B. But subjectively we can feel that it was courage that made the decision turn out A instead of B.

So really, much of the dysfunction in science and society that we now see, is caused by undermining of understanding of subjectivity.

17. 17
ET says:

No, Mo. Creation is a subset of ID.

18. 18
kairosfocus says:

MNY, actually, there is overlap but not a subset status. KF

19. 19
kairosfocus says:

ET, I think there are creationists who violently dismiss the design inference approach. Hence, overlap. KF

20. 20
Steve Alten2 says:

Kairosfocus “ , I think there are creationists who violently dismiss the design inference approach. Hence, overlap.”

Their may be creationists that don’t agree with the design inference approach, but I think that most IDists believe that creationism clearly falls within the ID concept.

Maybe it would be clearer if you could mention a creationist idea that is incompatible with ID.

21. 21
kairosfocus says:

SA2, design by God is design, as are designs by people, beavers and possibly other intelligent races in the cosmos. The design inference on the empirical study that there are reliable signs of design is about an empirical view of aspects of the world. Namely, that simply by studying features of the objects we may validly infer on signs that design was a key causal factor. Some creationists seem to think that we cannot cogently or reliably infer reliably about the world in the past of origins and reject the design inference principle and empirical tests. At the same time, design thinkers from Plato to today can and do infer to design on features of the world and its contents, without being creationists much less Biblical creationists whether old or young cosmos. Thus, on duty to accuracy, we have to be cautious in asserting subset claims one way or the other. That is why I made a side note to MNY. KF

22. 22
Steve Alten2 says:

Kairosfocus, modern creationists believe that God created the universe, life and humans. Whether or not some don’t agree that you can infer design by simply examining the artifact/structure doesn’t mean that creationism itself does not fall within ID.

An analogy would be Christianity as the big tent and all of the denominations under it. Within this tent there are denominations that will claim that one or more of the other denominations are not truly Christian because they have differing interpretations of the Bible. But the big tent fundamental idea is just that Jesus was the son of God, died on the cross and was resurrected (obviously there is a lot more). By that definition they are all Christian. The big tend ID concept is that many of the things we observe, including life, is best explained by the actions of an intelligent agent. Clearly, creationism falls within this tent even if there are some that have trouble with some of the approaches that are used. Science only progresses by questioning. Arguing that some ideas of creationism don’t fall under ID because they have disagreements about some of the details would be akin to admitting that ID is not science.

23. 23
kairosfocus says:

SA2, maybe you should stop taking your understanding of what ID is at core as a scientific project from dishonest and/or incompetent detractors such as those who hang around at Wikipedia. The central issue of relevance is whether observable entities manifest reliable signs that warrant an inference to design as best explanation through abductive form inductive reasoning. That is what distinguishes those willing to study the scientific issue on its merits (agreement or disagreement as to whether there are such identified signs comes later, out of actually doing the study . . . ) from those who impose a priori evolutionary materialism or who reject the possibility of reliable empirical detection of design. As it is, there is a family of such signs that can be summarised as functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information, FSCO/I. KF

PS: By sharp contrast with the willful agit prop at Wikipedia, note:

>>Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection” [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things.

Greater clarity on the topic may be gained from a discussion of what ID is not considered to be by its leading theorists. Intelligent design generally is not defined the same as creationism, with proponents maintaining that ID relies on scientific evidence rather than on Scripture or religious doctrines. ID makes no claims about biblical chronology, and technically a person does not have to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature. As a theory, ID also does not specify the identity or nature of the designer, so it is not the same as natural theology, which reasons from nature to the existence and attributes of God. ID does not claim that all species of living things were created in their present forms, and it does not claim to provide a complete account of the history of the universe or of living things.

ID also is not considered by its theorists to be an “argument from ignorance”; that is, intelligent design is not to be inferred simply on the basis that the cause of something is unknown (any more than a person accused of willful intent can be convicted without evidence). According to various adherents, ID does not claim that design must be optimal; something may be intelligently designed even if it is flawed (as are many objects made by humans).

ID may be considered to consist only of the minimal assertion that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent agent. It conflicts with views claiming that there is no real design in the cosmos (e.g., materialistic philosophy) or in living things (e.g., Darwinian evolution) or that design, though real, is undetectable (e.g., some forms of theistic evolution). Because of such conflicts, ID has generated considerable controversy. >>

24. 24
Steve Alten2 says:

Me “ The big tend ID concept is that many of the things we observe, including life, is best explained by the actions of an intelligent agent. “

Kairosfocus “ SA2, maybe you should stop taking your understanding of what ID is at core as a scientific project from dishonest and/or incompetent detractors such as those who hang around at Wikipedia. The central issue of relevance is whether observable entities manifest reliable signs that warrant an inference to design as best explanation through abductive form inductive reasoning.

Other than a couple big words, how is this different than what I said?

In every scientific endeavour there are disagreements as to the details and the value of the investigative tools. But everyone studying that field are still included within the same big tent. For example, those studying evolution may have significant disagreements as to the importance of various aspects of the subject such as neutral theory, epigenetics, junk DNA, etc but they all live within the same big tent. They all believe that differential reproduction acting on variable and heritable characteristics is the best explanation of the variation of life forms we observe.

The same applies to ID. ID is the all-encompassing subject where certain observations are best explained by the actions of an intelligent agent. Within this big tent there are disagreements on the value of some of the tools used (eg, explanatory filter, IC, etc), or exactly when and where the actions of an intelligent agent was necessary. But anyone who believes that an intelligent agent was necessary must, by definition, live in the ID tent, whether they admit it or not. I don’t understand your hostility towards this idea.

25. 25

With the straightforward meaning of words, intelligent design is a subset of creationism.

Choice is the mechanism of creation, it is how a creation originates. Intelligent design is a special kind of decisionmaking process.

When there are many independent decisions producing a result, then the result is a creation from those decisions. When a result is produced by a centralized. planned way of decisionmaking (although the definition of intelligently designing is not set in stone yet), then the result is a creation, and it is intelligently designed.

But ofcourse, intelligent design theorists haven’t even accepted that choice is the central mechanism of intelligent design. Probably because they cannot get a consensus on what it means to make a choice. Probably they are plagued by free will problems, as is common in philosophy.

But clearly the power of choice is why intelligent design is such an attractive theory. With choice, you can in principle have a zillion possible configurations of DNA directly at your disposal. All these possibilities being in the future in respect to a decision on them.

That is not the complete answer on how intelligent design would function, but it certainly is part of the answer. It is much more efficient than natural selection sorting out 1 configuration of DNA at a time, over the reproductive cycle of the individual.

26. 26
William J Murray says:

KF k@14 said:

WJM, that is what has been promoted and used to create plausibility for hyperskepticism.

It doesn’t matter what it has been promoted and used to create; it’s an inescapable fact of free will. We choose, ultimately, what we prefer, even when we abstain from direct pleasure or profit for the sake of some abstract concept of what is “right.”

That is far from reducing it to delusion.

Nobody said that it was “reduced to delusion.” You’re conflating different things; (1) the admission and recognition of the fact that all experiences occur in mind, and that scientific experiments have shown that mind is fundamental to everything we experience; and (2) “delusion.”

Our sight, hearing, touch can err but are generally credible.

More conflation of different things. Nobody is saying that our senses are not credible; what has been demonstrated untrue is the inferential, hypothetical model that describes the nature of what our senses are and what they are accessing.

The benefit of the doubt and burden to show otherwise [with caveat on grand delusion] rightly rest there.

The burden lies on those that hypothesize a world external of mind, not on those who make no such hypothesis but rather admit what is existentially true: these experiences occur in mind. You don’t get an entire additional order of existence for free just because that is the conventional way of interpreting those experiences and a whole catechism of logical inferences has been built from that inference.

Our senses and judgement need not be infallible to have earned a right to be taken as generally credible. The alternative being absurd. Which does not reduce to logical incoherence. ,

You’re making straw man arguments. Nobody said anything about the fallibility of our senses and judgement. The argument at hand has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Also, you don’t get a pass on meeting your challenges just because your senses, conscience or interpretations thereof are “credible.” Lots of things are credible; that doesn’t mean your claims about them hold up to logical criticism or scientific evidence.

WJM, oftentimes, one is most disinclined to do the duty but chooses because it is right. That is part of why I think preference language is not helpful

On balance of inclinations, they prefer to do what their choosing system points at as “right.” This is inescapable. You prefer the words and arrangements of words you use because it helps your case, but it obfuscates the inescapable role of preference in all free will choices.

It all boils down to preference, one way or another, That is another inescapable fact of the nature of all sentient creatures in any universe capable of choosing between options.

27. 27
William J Murray says:

Conscience varies from individual to individual; that all sentient beings make conscious, deliberate choices ultimately out of preference is absolute and inescapable.

28. 28
polistra says:

How will this prevent demons from running a worldwide holocaust? Demons don’t need logic. They have blackmail.

29. 29
William J Murray says:

Polistra @28,

Yep. Not to mention guns.

30. 30
kairosfocus says:

SA2,

Let me start with the current state of the Wikipedia pseudo-knowledge on ID, from its opening words, as key background — we will correct the accusations and errors later on:

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as “an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins”.[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]

Now, let us observe your reaction above to my comment to MNY and that to ET, that ID is in fact not a subset of Creationism. In 18, I briefly noted to MNY, “actually, there is overlap but not a subset status.” To ET, 19, just as briefly, “I think there are creationists who violently dismiss the design inference approach. Hence, overlap.”

[20:] Their may be creationists that don’t agree with the design inference approach, but I think that most IDists believe that creationism clearly falls within the ID concept. Maybe it would be clearer if you could mention a creationist idea that is incompatible with ID.

I am pretty sure you know the context as already given in the clip from Wikipedia, so your last sentence is regrettably loaded.

The key issue is orientation.

Creationists focus on God as creator, thus by definition designer. Some, as I went on to note, have a perspective that curiously overlaps with certain theistic evolutionists, though from very differing angles: they hold that we cannot infer soundly or reliably on the past of origins from present empirical evidence. To access the origin accurately, we must consult the designer’s report. Oddly, many evolutionary materialists also start with a prior commitment, as Lewontin and Crick et al document: a priori materialism on imagined grounds that anything else undermines scientific investigation.

The design inference does not begin there, with designers or an a priori essentially ideological locking in of evolutionary materialism. Instead, it starts with Newton’s principle that to responsibly scientifically address what we cannot directly observe, we should explain in terms of factors we can observe that have demonstrated power to cause the like effects. Thus, we look to things like FSCO/I in its various forms, or to fine tuned, mutually closely adapted systems built up from or analysable in terms of parts and facets and ask, what accounts for such features?

For example, cell based life uses complex algorithmic code stored in strings and associated execution machinery based on C-chem, aqueous medium molecular, folded polymer nanotech. In turn, we inhabit a cosmos fine tuned so that even the first four elements set up that: H, He, O, C. N is close by. Where, the very first fine tuning observation, is the resonance that leads to the O & C pattern. Stars, gateway to the rest of the periodic table, water, organic chemistry, N accounting for proteins. Many more details can be added.

It is readily recognised that code-bearing [so, linguistic] algorithmically functional [so, goal-directed] complex strings beyond 500 – 1,000 bits [so, beyond credible search capability of the sol system or observed cosmos] have just one empirically warranted source, intelligent design. Further to this, the blind search challenge readily overwhelms a sol system of 10^57 atoms in an observed cosmos of 10^80, with ~ 10^17 s on the clock and plausible organic chem reaction rates.

Design, as credible causal process — note, process — is the best, empirically warranted explanation for such effects. Where, FSCO/I [abbrev: functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information] and associated phenomena are highly reliable observed signs of design as cause. Where also, as we are patently contingent beings, we cannot credibly exhaust the list of possible designers. (The very existence of a Sci Fi literature and the SETI search should suffice to show how artful that frequently met objection is.)

So, Creationism and Design Theory have a very different focus. Some creationists are also design thinkers, others are not. There are design thinkers who are not creationists, and some are not theists.

The strawmannish caricature painted by Wikipedia and the like already stands exposed. Let us note:

1: Science/pseudoscience is generally not a helpful terminology as it tends to pivot on ideology and a priori materialistic commitment [often thinly veiled as a mere methodical constraint] rather than how empirically based inductive inferences are warranted.

2: In fact, there is no one size fits all and only Science, scientific method. That is, there is no unique method specific to the conventionally labelled sciences and beyond which there is an ugly gulch on the other side of which lie inferior grade studies.

3: That is, responsible empirically grounded, inductive methods do exist, and are applicable to the sciences, but are equally applicable in other fields of responsible investigation, even as the methods — note the plural — used in the lab and the field for the conventionally labelled sciences do not include elements that uniquely tie these sciences together.

4: Lab-based investigations [cf much of physics and chemistry], observational studies [starting with the root science, Astronomy], field studies [e.g. geology], simulation studies, etc overlap into other domains of practice and do not extend across the full span of the different sciences. Historical-forensic methods are even a part of science, starting with the testimony implicit in lab or observatory notebooks.

5: Mathematics, handmaiden of the sciences, is in the main, not an inductive, experimental or observational investigation. That is, the structure of warrant pivots on creating axiomatic systems and articulating a network of theorems from such. Of course, there are explorations, conjectures, bodies of lore that have not been systematised etc. And yet, core Mathematical findings are more strongly established than scientific theories.

6: It can thus be readily seen that there is no hard and fast border — demarcation line/criterion — between science and alleged pseudo-science. Error and fraud occurs within science, some scientific findings are better warranted than others, responsible methods used in sciences are not unique to the sciences.

7: Wikipedia’s hostile tone from its opening words reflect ideological hostility not sober minded analysis and balance.

8: ID is not at root a theory on life’s origins, though that is a major application. The core issue — which even Wikipedia used to note — is the matter of inference to design as causal process on reliable, empirically grounded signs.

9: The remark on best explanation points to abductive, inductive reasoning on empirically observed, tested, reliable signs, but of course that import is suppressed in haste to conflate with creationism, long since stigmatised as pseudoscience. This is irresponsible, accusatory rhetoric posing as established knowledge, i.e. the accusation of pseudo-science [literally, false knowledge] is confession by projection to the despised other.

10: As to the no-evidence claim, that is an outright lie. The evidence of FSCO/I and its reliably observed cause along with search challenge analysis are evidence. Elsewhere at Wikipedia, we can see the infinite monkeys challenge, as inadvertent testimony against ideological interest:

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. In fact, the monkey would almost surely type every possible finite text an infinite number of times. However, the probability that monkeys filling the entire observable universe would type a single complete work, such as Shakespeare’s Hamlet, is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time hundreds of thousands of orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe is extremely low (but technically not zero).

In this context, “almost surely” is a mathematical term with a precise meaning, and the “monkey” is not an actual monkey, but a metaphor for an abstract device that produces an endless random sequence of letters and symbols. One of the earliest instances of the use of the “monkey metaphor” is that of French mathematician Émile Borel in 1913,[1] but the first instance may have been even earlier . . . . [buried deep therein, we see:] The theorem concerns a thought experiment which cannot be fully carried out in practice, since it is predicted to require prohibitive amounts of time and resources. Nonetheless, it has inspired efforts in finite random text generation.

One computer program run by Dan Oliver of Scottsdale, Arizona, according to an article in The New Yorker, came up with a result on 4 August 2004: After the group had worked for 42,162,500,000 billion billion monkey-years, one of the “monkeys” typed, “VALENTINE. Cease toIdor:eFLP0FRjWK78aXzVOwm)-‘;8.t” The first 19 letters of this sequence can be found in “The Two Gentlemen of Verona”. Other teams have reproduced 18 characters from “Timon of Athens”, 17 from “Troilus and Cressida”, and 16 from “Richard II”.[26]

A website entitled The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, launched on 1 July 2003, contained a Java applet that simulated a large population of monkeys typing randomly, with the stated intention of seeing how long it takes the virtual monkeys to produce a complete Shakespearean play from beginning to end. For example, it produced this partial line from Henry IV, Part 2, reporting that it took “2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years” to reach 24 matching characters:

RUMOUR. Open your ears; 9r”5j5&?OWTY Z0d . . .

11: 24 ASCII characters involves 7 x 24 = 168 bits, a config space of 3.74 * 10^50, a FACTOR of about 10^100 short of the 3.27*10^150 configs for 500 bits. 1,000 bits implies 1.07*10^301 configs. In short, we here see how blind search is overwhelmed long before it can credibly discover a first shoreline of complex configuration based function. The cosmos scope search on available resources rounds down to negligible search.

12: Obviously, the second Wikipedia article reports an unacknowledged empirical test of the design inference, as we have pointed out here at UD for many years. In general, the generation of 500 bits of FSCO/I by genuine blind chance and/or mechanical necessity would shatter the core sign that is used to infer design as cause.

13: ID is eminently testable, has been tested many times on this central claim and it stands confident on its strength. We therefore find a second pivotal lie in the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia ID article.

14: The Discovery Institute, of course, is not a specifically Christian organisation, but rather a generally libertarian thinktank. There are fellows and leading figures who are Christian, and others who are not. So, we can readily see here a “right wing theocratic Christofascist” strawman caricature and smear.

KF

31. 31
kairosfocus says:

WJM, I repeat, the fatal ambiguity in the term, preference, makes it ill adapted to clarity on this matter. I recall here a case of a man who had a relationship with a most attractive but unsuitable lady; who tried to outright seduce him. He was of course, very inclined to give in, but refused, explaining to her that it was a matter of the good of their souls. Choice, per duty, often runs directly counter to preference as inclination, or even overwhelming desire. KF

32. 32
kairosfocus says:

F/N: In a sense, it is a pity that the main line of comments above is largely tangential. I draw attention to the OP on how core first duties of reason work with deductive and inductive frames for the logic of implication, and how self-evident truths can be seen as demonstrated. I/l/o the issues with WJM, I note that many objections to sound conscience [which unquestionably testifies to obligations] imply delusion which would pervade our mindedness. The testimony of conscience regarding that sadly murdered child stands as self-evident truth on pain of immediate absurdity of undermining credibility of the mind. But then, that same absurdity is precisely the fatal crack in the foundation of modern evolutionary materialistic scientism, which has not prevented it from gaining dominance. That says much about our civilisation, none of it good. KF

33. 33
Origenes says:

W.J. Murray wrote:

“The burden lies on those that hypothesize a world external of mind, not on those who make no such hypothesis but rather admit what is existentially true: these experiences occur in mind.”

1. All experience is individual; starts with “I”, never “we”.
2. All participants of this thread experience “Implication” as the first word of the title.

3. Therefor there is a world external to the individual minds of the participants, which independently informs the experience of them all.

(…) “independent of individual minds” does not mean “outside of mind.”

How do you picture this independent world not to be “outside of mind”?

34. 34
kairosfocus says:

Origenes, there has been a long tradition since Plato’s parable of the cave, up to today’s the matrix, of posing scenarios on which our collective experience based knowledge of the world is reduced to grand delusion. The implication is then drawn, see you cannot prove we don’t live in a delusion [which is observationally more or less equivalent to the conventional view, at least for those still in the chains or the pods etc]. This then bolsters the tendency to hyperskepticism and even cynicism that haunts our civilisation’s intellectual history, tied to the demand for utterly certain proof for essentially any inconvenient knowledge claim one is inclined to doubt. What allowed me to break out of it, was to recognise that grand delusion claims undermine rationality and so reasoning and knowledge, thus are self-referentially incoherent through an infinite regress of successive doubts. If we are all delusional, why isn’t the claim that one’s scenario undermines the conventional wisdom also delusional? After all, GIGO is there, and there are no firewalls in our rationality. So, on worldview level inference to best explanation, grand delusion proposals are fatally incoherent and are absurd, thus are explanatory failures coming out the starting gates. Reidian common good sense makes far better sense, in terms of the heuristics that are defeatable in detail allowing corrective refinement, but on the whole are safe ground as their claimed blanket falsification is self-referentially self-defeating. So, we are back to Locke’s observation. KF

PS: Locke on the candle within, in intro to essay on human understanding, section 5:

[Essay on Human Understanding, Intro, Sec 5:] Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 – 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 – 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 – 2, Ac 17, etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 – 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.

Sobering.

35. 35
kairosfocus says:

F/N: Britannica has a good 101 on implication https://www.britannica.com/topic/implication KF

36. 36

As far as I can tell, your assertion is that what is illogical, is also immoral. A logic error is a moral error. It is just a category error, confusing objectivity with subjectivity.

37. 37
Origenes says:

Kairosfocus,

I agree with you on the absurdity of the attempt to reduce the existence of a world independent from our individual experiences to a grand delusion.
However W.J. Murray has stated several times that this is not part of his agenda —— see e.g. #26.
I am genuinely curious to find out how he pictures this independent world to be “mental”, or, put another way, to be “not outside of mind.”

38. 38
jerry says:

The Great Courses has a course on Logic which is on sale today. The video download is \$49 for 24 lectures.

https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/an-introduction-to-formal-logic

On effective reasoning

https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/argumentation-the-study-of-effective-reasoning-2nd-edition

39. 39
William J Murray says:

Origenes,

KF keeps tilting at a straw man windmill. There’s a reason I don’t say “your” mind or “my mind.”

In my MRT, we begin with mind – you might call it “universal mind.” It is the entirety of all existence.

There are different categories of “stuff” in universal mind. One category of things in mind are “individual consciously aware experiencers,” or “individual consciously aware perspectives.”

Any individual, consciously aware experiencer requires two things; a “self” and an “other,” or the experiencer and the experienced; two sides (subject/context) of the same coin: the experience.

How can we model this usefully? I use the following model:

Universal mind is “all possible information and arrangements and interpretations thereof.” What defines a “self” and its necessary context as described above? Aware consciousness (as opposed to the subconscious or unconscious) itself is ineffable in any existential model, MRT or ERT; it is that which has the experience.

Under MRT, consciousness selects and arranges information into the two aspects of an experience; what it perceives as “self” and that which it perceives as “other.” A readily available example of this would be what occurs in a dream.

So, one might describe it this way: universal consciousness is having a dream where it perceives experiences as countless interacting dream avatars in a dream world. It is entirely consciousness processing infinite arrangements of information into every possible experience. At the individual level, we are particular experiences of “self and other.”

So, it’s rather obfuscating to say we have individual minds; we have, to one degree or another, individual informational structures that identify us as distinct from other individuals, but we’re all actually experiencing the same universal mind. Bernardo Kastrup characterizes this as a kind of universal dissociative identity disorder, formerly known as having multiple personalities. In fact, psychology is one of the disciplines he uses to support his MRT. He has some rather shocking clinical examples of how different personalities manifested measurably different physical states in the patients, such as changes in eye color, and one personality being diabetic and another not.

People that share what we call “a physical world external of mind” – how they see the same word at the beginning of the title of this post – is because they, as individuals, share a substantial set of information and the programs (algorithms) that process that information into experience. A good way of understanding this is by using the example of a virtual world game. Millions of people can put on a VR headset and experience the same 3D experiential “external” world. What is going on here is that a common data set is being processed through the same program that provides for coordinated, correlating experiences among all participants. Their avatars in the VR world are also being generated from the shared data set as is the “world” around them.

So, from this perspective, we have a set of coordinated, corroborative experiences not because there is an actual, physical world external of mind, but because we are accessing a common set of data being interpreted and correlated by a common set of processing programs and protocols. Variances between participants might be called individual customizations.

There are also all kinds of data sets and processing protocols that are separate from this particular “common physical experience” module.

Here’s the rimshot: everything I just described in terms of common data set and shared processing protocols that exist in our “minds” must exist even if there is an actual world external of mind or else we would not have confirmable, coordinated experiences. MRT theory just disposes of what is an entirely unnecessary, extraneous “third party” domain of existence.

40. 40
William J Murray says:

You want to use implication logic, let’s use it, and use it honestly.

What is a “physical law,” like gravity, and how is that phenomena we experience behaves in such a precise, mathematical way? When we say gravity causes behavior, we are erroneously reifying an abstract model of behavior for the cause of the behavior itself. Gravity doesn’t cause any behavior; it is the model of the behavior. We don’t have a clue what causes it, or why the behavior is precise in relation to an abstract set of rules.

The implication here is obvious: gravitational phenomena behaves in a precise, mathematical way because it is coded, or programmed, to behave that way. How is “fine tuning” or, for that matter, any “tuning” at all instantiated? How else do you explain physical entities behaving according to entirely abstract rules? How can you get “matter” to behave in a mathematically precise fashion? What’s moving it? What’s keeping it on track? What is coordinating experiences between observers?

When you have a common dream, does gravity actually exist in that dream world? Do physics actually determine why, in a regular video game, the characters and objects in the world seem to behave according to physics? These patterns of experiential phenomena are generated by rulesets, by shared algorithmic protocols being applied to shared datasets.

Universal forces and laws, energy, the Fibonnaci sequence and other repeated patterns we find in nature – the implication is that they are artifacts of coding protocols and algorithms used to translate a common dataset into common experiences under a particular ruleset.

41. 41
Steve Alten2 says:

Kairosfocus@30 disagrees that Creationism is a subset of ID. His disagreement revolves around the fact that some creationists disagree that some of the tools used by other IDists have the probative value that some think they do. That does not place them outside the ID tent, it just places them at a disagreement with Kairosfocus’ view of ID.

1. ID believes that an intelligent agent is the best explanation for life.

2. Creationists believe that God, an intelligent agent, is the best explanation for life.

3. Since ID’s view is much broader in that it does not limit the intelligent agent to the God of creationists, and since ID does not exclude creationism as a possibility, creationism clearly is a subset of ID.

4. I can’t believe I am supporting ET. 🙂

42. 42
Origenes says:

W.J. Murray wrote:

So, one might describe it this way: universal consciousness is having a dream where it perceives experiences as countless interacting dream avatars in a dream world. It is entirely consciousness processing infinite arrangements of information into every possible experience.

For clarity, did you mean to write: “It is entirely consciousnessly processing …”?

So, it’s rather obfuscating to say we have individual minds; we have, to one degree or another, individual informational structures that identify us as distinct from other individuals, but we’re all actually experiencing the same universal mind.

Are you saying that each one of us is actually the universal mind who is having a narrowing of consciousness?

43. 43

From an information perspective objects consist of the laws of nature, like the law of gravity. Then as laws unto themselves the objects exhibit freedom. The objects have arms of alternative possibilities values for their parameters, stretched out into the future, which future they anticipate. Then from one moment to the next, one of the alternative futures is made the present, meaning it is decided. And the parameters are computed with the laws of nature, producing the new state of the object. Then the objects have new possibilities for their new situation.

44. 44
kairosfocus says:

SA2,

when significant Creationists reject the pivot of design theory, then Creationism cannot be taken as a simple subset of design theory. There are overlaps, certain Creationists also accept the design inference and its value, but significant others reject it and design theory. Intersecting sets with members outside the intersection are not subsets, period.

As for the notion or suggestion that my summary of ID is idiosyncratic, that simply tells us you do not understand what ID as to core nature is.

I already gave the NWE encyclopedia summary, which is referred to by the link Wiki used to snip-snipe. I now turn to UD’s own summary:

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained [–> abductive form, inductive logic per, inference to the best explanation] by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. [–> notice, inference is to design, the process evident in reliable signs, not to any particular candidate designer] ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. [–> this is certainly the institutionally dominant school of thought regarding origin of life, origin of multicellular life, origin of body plans, origin of man and of human intelligence]

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. [–> notice, detection of design on observation of signs associated with intelligently directed configuration] Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.[–> testability]

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. [–> correct] ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation.

[–> FSCO/I beyond 500 – 1,000 bits, cf the uncontroversial Nobel Prize-winning discovery of string data structure, algorithmic coded information in the cell and its central role in life, thus also language, goal-directed complex process, specific cases where the complexity is irreducible in the sense that multiple well matched parts are each necessary for function, etc]

Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.

Likewise, intelligent design dot org:

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

See the New World Encyclopedia entry on intelligent design. [MORE . . . ]

The accuracy of my outline and the relevance of my clip from NWE above are clear.

I now correct your argument:

>>1. ID believes that an intelligent agent is the best explanation for life.>>

a – strawman, the empirical sign-based inference at the core of design theory is to design, a causal process rather than a causal agent, and not any particular agent

b – design, per observation, is generally produced by intelligence; however, there are various possibilities as to intelligence, starting with other agents than humans, beavers etc within our cosmos, to a built in intelligence as part of the cosmos itself, to gods, to God. Intelligence is not even synonymous with consciousness. Indeed, as an active participant here advocates, one view is there is mind and there is no independent physical world to be actually observed, in effect it is a simulation, though that may be too crude a term.

c – such are onward issues.

>>2. Creationists believe that God, an intelligent agent, is the best explanation for life.>>

d – Creationists are theists and hold that God is an agent distinct from and cause of the observed cosmos, which has independence and in which there are created agents. As a part of this, biological life and embodied agents are explained by that creation.

e – An important subset further hold that the creator gave an outline report which is available to us in writing. [There are at least two different main writings in view, correlated in the first instance to the Judaeo-Christian tradition and in the second to the Islamic one, which on its own terms, Surah 29 ff, holds itself to be partly corrective to the former, held to have been significantly corrupted. There may be forms of Hinduism etc that might also fit in but that is not central here.]

f – The point where overlap as opposed to subset emerges, is where certain Creationists of note specifically reject the design inference and/or the design inference research programme. (Which BTW, despite extreme hostility and dubious censorship, now has several dozen peer reviewed articles published over coming on 20 years.)

>>3. Since ID’s view is much broader in that it does not limit the intelligent agent to the God of creationists, and since ID does not exclude creationism as a possibility, creationism clearly is a subset of ID.>>

g – error carried forward.

h – by missing the core characteristics and focus of design theory, pivoting on the design inference on sign that holds that things with such signs are best explained as designed . . . process . . . an improper conflation has been made.

KF

45. 45
kairosfocus says:

WJM:

>>What is a “physical law,” like gravity,>>

1: At first level, a tested, reliable summary of an observed pattern in events/processes in the world as experienced.

2: At second level, an empirically correlated postulate within an explanatory framework, generally with descriptive elements and often with kinetic or dynamic and/or stochastic change processes, save for those that focus on conserved quantities and equilibria.

3: At third level, a summary of a process connected to parameters and/or to logic of being that often summarises quantifiable patterns in the world.

4: E.g. E + W = h*f, which was a key part of Einstein’s Nobel Prize. Here, maximum observed kinetic energy of a photo-electron plus work function [energy to escape the surface] is available energy from the photon. The photon is the frequency-tied energy of lumps of light . . . light comes in lumps, Planck was right. This energy has to knock the electron out and give it kinetic energy. Hence, threshold frequency where hf = W.

>>and how is that phenomena we experience behaves in such a precise, mathematical way?>>

5: in some cases, quantitative aspects of logic of being, in others as seen, conservation processes with things such as energy. In others, accumulative effects dependent on intensity of a change driver vs degree of inertia to be affected. Superpositions, reinforcements and cancellations count [e.g. refraction, reflection of light tied to interactions with material media]. Stochastic effects can come from sensitive dependence on initial conditions [toss a die], or from a large number of interactions in varied degrees [normal distributions, thermal distributions], threshold effects [chemical and nuclear reactions] and more.

>> When we say gravity causes behavior, we are erroneously reifying an abstract model of behavior>>

6: Often loose speaking. Massive objects warp space, that warping is sensed as gravity forces. Magnetic forces by contrast boil down to residuals of Coulomb [similar space influence forces] forces from relative motion, why they are associated with velocities not accelerations. Again, much more.

>> for the cause of the behavior itself. Gravity doesn’t cause any behavior; it is the model of the behavior. >>

7: As we report it in equations, yes, however we can observe warping, e,g, 1919 and the displacement of apparent star locations as light is bent around the sun. At grander level gravitational lenses are seen with galaxies.

>>We don’t have a clue what causes it, >>

8: Space warping by masses.

>>or why the behavior is precise in relation to an abstract set of rules.>>

9: The warping is spatial and quantitative tied to how much mass is in a star or galaxy, etc. That correlates with matter and of course points to dark matter etc. Which we still haven’t figured out.

KF

46. 46
Steve Alten2 says:

Kairosfocus “ when significant Creationists reject the pivot of design theory, then Creationism cannot be taken as a simple subset of design theory.

So, if these creationist are ultimately proven to be correct, yet God is proven to be the designer, you will admit that ID was wrong?

47. 47
kairosfocus says:

SA2, if they were shown correct of course. Which is the same issue as showing the signs to not be reliable. Such is abstractly possible but on search challenge the design inference on FSCO/I is comparably as reliable as the second law of thermodynamics. The same issue of relative statistical weights in very large configuration or phase spaces obtains. KF

48. 48

The straightforward thing to do, would be to investigate how intelligent design by people works. And with that knowledge of how intelligent design works, try to find the intelligent designing by which organisms were created.

Just as Paley correctly inferred intelligent design of organisms in nature, by first looking at human intelligent design.

But strangely, intelligent design theorists, do not look at how intelligent designing by people works.

If we would look at how intelligent design by people works, then we would end up with theory of DNA as being an insipient mind. DNA as being an information processing system. Which would lead to theory about the DNA configuration being dreamt up in the DNA system, by intelligent design.

Not that this would be the end result finding, but that is how it would go.

49. 49
kairosfocus says:

MNY, actually no, kindly research TRIZ https://www.triz.org/triz/ . KF

50. 50
William J Murray says:

I said:

>>We don’t have a clue what causes it, [gravity]>>

KF responded:

8: Space warping by masses.

How does mass warp space? You are referring to a descriptive model s if that descriptive model is the cause. “Mass warping space” is just another of a long line of gravitational descriptive models; nobody knows what causes gravity, or why anything like it should exist at all.

Gravity, like all forces, laws, energies and even “matter,” are obviously rendered by abstract programming utilizing mathematical algorithms acting on informational data sets. We discovered a lot of the programming code when we discovered the mathematical formulas that govern these renderings.

51. 51

A newly invented part leads to suboptimal design in the rest of the product.

Sort of obvious.

It is not getting to the core of intelligent design, the actual intelligent decisionmaking processes by which a product is formed.

Do you suppose the human mind is an extension of the DNA information processing system, or do you suppose the human mind is a development of the DNA system, just like arms and legs are developments?

52. 52

Creationist conceptual scheme
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / fact

So it is shown, creationism covers all facts, all science, not just biology, and all personal opinions as well (like opinion on beauty)

Which means intelligent design, and literally everything else, is a subset of creationism. Intelligent design beins some particular sophisticated decisionmaking processes.

53. 53
William J Murray says:

For clarity, did you mean to write: “It is entirely consciousnessly processing …”?

No. The “it” I’m referring to is “The dream,” which is a analogous proxy for “all experiential existence.”

Are you saying that each one of us is actually the universal mind who is having a narrowing of consciousness?

That’s probably as good a way of expressing it as any other.

It’s interesting to me that, apparently by chance, my MRT corresponds to so many religious and spiritual perspectives, especially considering that I’m not a religious or spiritual person. Under my MRT, one might say we are “children” of God (universal mind/consciousness), or “aspects” of God, or made in the image of God; that “God” lies within each of us and is personal; also, that God “is everything,” or that everything is sustained or ground in or brought into existence by the mind of God; that everything we experience is generated from the “causal” plane (mind) and above that identity is dissolved into universal “oneness” (which, IMO, isn’t even an actual experience, but rather the obliteration of experience because of the dissolution of self and other;) my MRT holds dualism as the essential “on-off” bit code of all individual experiential existence, which can be traced down (mapped) through a kind of “logic map” of individual experience, explaining how and why we experience what we do.

It has been my experience, and is my view, that once a person understands this, they can reprogram themselves to experience any self/other arrangement they wish – as long as it is a possible arrangement. There are few things that are “not possible.”

54. 54
kairosfocus says:

WJM, mass warps space-time, so for example light bends giving rise to gravitational lensing. Try short intro here. Introductory survery https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.07287.pdf . Newtonian gravitation theory describes the weak field case, where black holes are of course the classic example of a strong field case. Intro textbook https://archive.org/details/relativity-gravitation-and-cosmology-a-basic-introduction KF

55. 55
William J Murray says:

KF @54: You’re erroneously reifying the current model of the behavior as the cause of the behavior. How does “mass” effect a “warping” in “space-time?” You don’t know; nobody does.

56. 56
William J Murray says:

What do words like “gravitation” and “the charge of an electron” or “inertia” or “entropy” or “polarity” refer to? What do the numbers assigned to such values represent? All of that refers to either actual or potential behaviors of the associated phenomena we experience. All the mathematical values and phrases refer to elements of the behavioral models. That is all those things ultimately mean; we have no idea how it is that the behavior itself is what it is, we’re just using numbers and words to map and represent the behaviors.

But, what is actually causing the mapped and modeled behaviors?

How it is that these behaviors are what they are? Why they are comprehensible and interactively produce a coherent world (experience) is a complete and utter mystery under ERT, unless one refers to MRT in one form or another. The fine-tuning argument only scratches the surface; how are abstract physical laws, force values, etc. even instantiated in a world external of mind? How are these things forced to behave this way?

There is no rational explanation without reference to some form of MRT; understanding these behaviors to be patterns of mental phenomena being rendered by a set of abstract rules is the only rational, actual explanation as the cause of this interactively precise mathematical behavior.

57. 57
Viola Lee says:

At 40, WJM wrote,

What is a “physical law,” like gravity, and how is that phenomena we experience behaves in such a precise, mathematical way? When we say gravity causes behavior, we are erroneously reifying an abstract model of behavior for the cause of the behavior itself. Gravity doesn’t cause any behavior; it is the model of the behavior. We don’t have a clue what causes it, or why the behavior is precise in relation to an abstract set of rules.

and at 56

What do words like “gravitation” and “the charge of an electron” or “inertia” or “entropy” or “polarity” refer to? What do the numbers assigned to such values represent? All of that refers to either actual or potential behaviors of the associated phenomena we experience. All the mathematical values and phrases refer to elements of the behavioral models. That is all those things ultimately mean; we have no idea how it is that the behavior itself is what it is, we’re just using numbers and words to map and represent the behaviors.

But, what is actually causing the mapped and modeled behaviors?

I strongly agree with these statements.

The world is what is is, and things are what they are. [I know that is a trivial truism, but it’s true ! :-)] Why they are that way is unknown. How it is that they have a nature that uniformly manifests itself is unknown. Our descriptions, including our most overarching concepts, are a descriptive model of what what we experience.

58. 58
JVL says:

William J Murray: There is no rational explanation without reference to some form of MRT; understanding these behaviors to be patterns of mental phenomena being rendered by a set of abstract rules is the only rational, actual explanation as the cause of this interactively precise mathematical behavior.

I have a question: where does the energy necessary for all this mental processing come from? Outside of the mind doing the processing?

59. 59
Seversky says:

Viola Lee/57

I strongly agree with these statements.

So do I.

60. 60
Lieutenant Commander Data says:

JVL
I have a question: where does the energy necessary for all this mental processing come from? Outside of the mind doing the processing?

There are turtle all the way down but if you look closely you will see there is an electric wire glued on turtle shells that supply the necessary power for the MRT.

61. 61
William J Murray says:

I have a question: where does the energy necessary for all this mental processing come from? Outside of the mind doing the processing?

You’re also reifying a model of behaviors for what causes the behavior itself.

62. 62
kairosfocus says:

WJM,

Let me clip Tai-Pei Cheng as linked, from his introductory chapter:

• Relativity means that physically it is impossible to detect absolute
motion. This can be stated as a symmetry in physics: physics equations
are unchanged under coordinate transformations. [–> this brings in the heavy-duty Math]
• Special relativity (SR) is the symmetry with respect to coordinate
transformations among inertial frames [–> non-accelerated coord systems], general relativity (GR) among
more general frames, including the accelerating coordinate systems.
• The equivalence between the physics due to acceleration and to gravity
means that GR is also the relativistic theory of gravitation, and SR is
valid only in the absence of gravity . . .
• Relativity represents a new understanding of space and time. In SR we
?rst learn that time is also a frame-dependent coordinate; the arena for
physical phenomena is the four dimensional spacetime. GR interprets
gravity as the structure of this spacetime. Ultimately, according to
Einstein, space and time have no independent existence: they express
relation and causal structure of physics processes in the world.
• The proper framework for cosmology is GR. The solution of the GR
?eld equation describes the whole universe because it describes the
whole spacetime.

Einstein’s general theory of relativity is a classical ?eld theory of gravitation.
It encompasses, and goes beyond, Newton’s theory, which is valid only for
particles moving with slow velocity (compared to the speed of light) in a weak
and static gravitational ?eld. Although the effects of general relativity (GR)
are often small in the terrestrial and solar domains, its predictions have been
accurately verified whenever high precision observations can be performed.
Notably we have the three classical tests of GR: the precession of a planet’s
perihelion, the bending of star light by the sun, and redshift of light’s frequency
in a gravitational ?eld. When it comes to situations involving strong gravity,
such as compact stellar objects and cosmology, the use of GR is indispens-
able. Einstein’s theory predicted the existence of black holes, where the gravity
is so strong that even light cannot escape from them. We must also use GR
for situations involving time-dependent gravitational ?elds as in emission and
propagation of gravitational waves. The existence of gravitational waves as
predicted by GR has been verified by observing the rate of energy loss, due to
the emission of gravitational radiation, in a relativistic binary pulsar system.
GR can naturally accommodate the possibility of a constant “vacuum energy
density” giving rise to a repulsive gravitational force. Such an agent is the
key ingredient of modern cosmological theories of the big bang (the in?ationary
cosmology) and of the accelerating universe (having a dark energy) . . . .

Besides being a theory of gravitation, GR, also provides us with a new
understanding of space and time. Starting with special relativity (SR), we
learnt that time is not absolute. Just like spatial coordinates, it depends on
the reference frame as de?ned by an observer. This leads to the perspective of
viewing physical events as taking place in a 4D continuum, called the spacetime.
Einstein went further in GR by showing that the geometry of this spacetime was
just the phenomenon of gravitation and was thus determined by the matter and
energy distribution
. Ultimately, this solidi?es the idea that space and time do
not have an independent existence; they are nothing but mirroring the relations
among physical events taking place in the world.

Notice, we are here extracting the logic of being, structural and quantitative, logical implications for a spacetime domain once certain key postulates hold. Where, the general theory embraces acceleration, including that in effect gravitation is acceleration, change of motion.

The sophisticated math, Tensors, is a super set in effect from scalars, vectors and matrices that allows us to specifically represent and explore consequences . . . logic of being, structural and quantitative consequences [i.e. we do math] . . . of the key invariants. It turns out to extend to the whole spacetime domain, i.e. we have a mathematical cosmology, one that famously was prone to either collapse or expansion, hence Einstein’s stabilising fudge factor, the cosmological constant. (Which then got embedded, esp. once Hubble expansion was established by extension from telescopic examination with the 100 incher used by that astronomer.)

So, we are taking on board the observationally anchored physics of the world and are carrying forward the programme of exploring the structural, quantitative implications — key term — of those framing postulates. Hence, we are back at Wigner’s wonderment on the power of mathematical analysis in physical settings. As can be seen (cf the short paper here), that pivots on key structural-quantitative implications of there being any distinct possible worlds, which embeds a core of the logic of structure and quantity, i.e. Mathematics.

That begins with N,Z,Q,R,C,R* etc and linked structures and relations such as what a multidimensional spacetime domain involves.

Now of course, nothing in this involves the required import that our perceived and experienced in-common world is in effect a “dream” or the like. Indeed, it was developed in a context of exploring the world on an understanding that it is actualised. The logic of alternative explanations obtains, that where explanations e1, e2 . . . en have a considerable span of in common observational consequences o1, o2 . . . om, and project further predictions p1, p2, . . . we may empirically compare on predictive success but high reliability does not reverse the direction so for some ek, {O + P . . . } => ek. Of course if a certain el has a sustained pattern of failures f1, f2 . . . that over long enough time are not reconcilable, el becomes a failed explanation. It can in principle be rescued, but often that is effectively a permanent verdict.

Empirical effectiveness, in short, is not decisive. logical incoherence within a given explanation is, per principle of explosion. Similarly, we find it reasonable to set aside ad hoc patchworks that keep on having to patch holes instead of elegantly predicting, and we find that simplistic explanations that lack coverage are similarly not helpful. This applies within science and it extends to worldviews.

Here, GTR was developed by taking the actuality of the physical world and the then astonishing discovery that per the Michelson-Morley experiment to make comparative measurements of c at differing points in Earth’s orbit, c was independent of observer velocity. And BTW, the role of key invariants and symmetries implies that relativity does not warrant relativism. Thus, mere reference to the mathematical structure of cosmos scope theories does not allow dismissal of scientific or full orbed worldview explanations that take actuality of our common world seriously.

(I have already noted, on the self-discrediting nature of any worldview framework that in effect implies that we are under, highly prone to or are strongly suspected to be in a grand delusion; such undermine confidence in basic rationality, the basis on which even such views are built. Reidian common sense, on the whole, makes good sense: locally defeatable presumptions that allow refinement of our views, without needlessly flying off into the sort of grand delusion accounts that have haunted Western thought since Plato’s parable of the cave.)

KF

63. 63
William J Murray says:

VL @57 said:

How it is that they have a nature that uniformly manifests itself is unknown. Our descriptions, including our most overarching concepts, are a descriptive model of what we experience.

When it comes to how these things are what they are, there are only a handful of concepts currently available; there’s the “it is what it is” concept, which basically just considers it an unanswerable question. There’s the multiverse view which doesn’t really even address the question, it just multiples that which needs explanation. There’s the design/God perspective, but again, this answer does not address the actual question, which is not really about the fine-tuning of the behaviors, but about how patterns of behaviors get instantiated into phenomena we are experiencing in the first place.

Considering what we now know via quantum physics research and experimentation, the patterns don’t even exist “out there” somewhere; they do not exist until consciousness interacts with information. Consciousness and information are necessarily abstract or mental commodities. The patterns are somehow generated by this interaction. I don’t know how else it can be interpreted, other than that there is programming code that governs how this interaction produces experience, and because it is indeed coded programming, we recognize the patterns generated by the programming code. It is a semiotic relationship. This programming operates in the same exact fashion as things we ourselves program; logically and mathematically.

Logic and math are two inescapable qualities of sentience; they fundamentally represent self-evident truths about our existence and are that by which anything is understood by a sentient creature. They are also both entirely abstract, or mental, commodities. The only way we can have comprehensible (sentient) experiences is if compatible sets of information are selected (by the programming) and are mathematically and logically rendered into recognizable patterns.

An entire domain of existence external of mind is unnecessary, unprovable, and ultimately unsupportable. It also requires the explanation of how that world came to be governed by abstract rules.

BTW, I think we’ve found another inescapable aspect of sentient existence: experiential patterns.

And perhaps another: semiotic relationships.

64. 64
kairosfocus says:

PS: As an extension, what does it mean for a given possible world to be actualised?

Start with possible world W, constituting a sufficiently complete compounding of world-characterising propositions, w1, w2 . . . wn. Where, possibility implies, feasibility of instantiation and requires that no wk is such that for some wi, wk = ~wi. Worlds must be internally coherent. They will generally include entities with attributes and relationships in a structural pattern. Such needs not be spatially extended, i.e. wholly abstract worlds are possible, in which the abstract space imposed by C, through the j*() rotation operator that leads to sqrt-1, is not physically extended. We already know that domains of mathematical abstracta are entailed by the simple distinct identity of W as distinguished from a near neighbour W’.

Is actuality merely our geography in the array of possible worlds? That is, are there some or many or infinitely many actual worlds in which we happen to be here?

There effectively are infinitely many abstract possible worlds, once near neighbourhood can be extended, W0, W1, . . . W, W’,W” etc. But that does not entail that many are actualised, rather than just being abstract proposition lists. This does suggest the presence of W0 as a root level, necessary being world involving exceedingly powerful mind.

On such a view, physical actualisation as opposed to conception is a matter of creation, manifesting energy in material form, with of course the cluster of necessary, world framework abstracta shaping logic of being. What is possible within a world is not just what is arbitrarily caused, but what is constrained by the logic of being. Where too, materialised centities are possible and we have no good reason to dismiss their actuality in this common world, without undermining credibility of our minds.

Could a physical world be autonomous, independent of a root, W0?

Given causal-temporal succession by finite stages as a key characteristic, we see the constraint that a succession like that of actual stages cannot be transfinite, esp. once we use the hyperreals to allow us to frame the ideas involved. Physical worlds are inherently contingent, they have beginnings. Such physicality plausibly involves energy, its equivalent, mass, space, warping by mass, hence gravitation, causal interactions involving energy flows, and for particle based domains, entropy and thermodynamics. To think credibly, mind has to transcend computation under GIGO, and rationality suggests that a physical world can and would have creatures with that capability. Something we do not significantly understand at present but can model, e.g. with the Smith two tier controller cybernetic loop, in which the upper tier exerts quantum influence, shaping outcomes.

We can elaborate, but the existence of wholly mental worlds — let’s call them contemplations — does not preclude possibility of physically instantiated ones, even ones involving amphibian creatures with Smithian mind-cyber loop architectures.

The evidence of our common experience is that this world is an actualisation not a contemplation, and there is no good, non self-discrediting reason to dismiss that in common experience.

65. 65
William J Murray says:

KF @62,

(1) Is organized by abstract mental commodities,
(2) Is accessing mental information,
(3) is referencing mental experiences,
(4) is mentally postulating a hypothetical (abstract) “world external of mind,”
(5) is attempting to make the case that unless we accept that hypothetical (mental) construct as “actual” and the source of a certain set of our mental experiences, we are prone to delusion;
(6) therefore, is necessarily attempting to make the case that a mental construct (hypothetical external world,) and entirely mental tools (logic,) applied to entirely mental experiences, is our only bulwark against mental delusion.

Our only bulwark against delusion, regardless of whether or not there is any world external of mind, is being able to successfully sort between different categories of mental experience and use abstract rules of thought correctly in doing so. Changing the label for a category of experience does not change the categorical qualities of that set of experience or reduce our capacity to correctly discern between that category and other categories of mental experience.

However, if the only way you can prevent yourself from slipping into delusion is by clinging to that particular label wording and believing in the “actuality” of a world external of our mental experience, so be it. I don’t need labels to discern one kind of mental experience from another, and I don’t need to believe in a hypothetical world external of mind to function successfully wrt that particular category of experiences.

66. 66
kairosfocus says:

WJM, the existence of contemplations cannot eliminate possibility of actualities, and our experience indicates that we are amphibian, minded cybernetic loop entities in an actuality. There is no good reason to dismiss that common experience, especially given the self-referential impact of grand delusion. KF

PS: A simulation world is an actuality [or, given PC games etc a sub-actuality], being based on a computational substrate.

67. 67
William J Murray says:

Mental Reality (independent of any particular theory about how it works) is self-evidently true in the exact same manner of any self-evident truth; it is that from which, by which, within which any thought, inference, implication, or deduction proceeds, even arguments against it; it is where all evidence and facts are experienced. Mental Reality is not just a branch on the tree, it is the whole tree, and you (and your arguments, and everything they reference and use) is necessarily part of that tree.

When you can use non-abstract arguments, and use non-mental experiences as evidence or support for your theory of a non-mental domain, let me know. Otherwise, you might as well be trying to make a case for square circles or that 2+2+5.

68. 68
William J Murray says:

KF @66 said:

WJM, the existence of contemplations cannot eliminate possibility of actualities, and our experience indicates that we are amphibian, minded cybernetic loop entities in an actuality. There is no good reason to dismiss that common experience, especially given the self-referential impact of grand delusion. KF

You’re conflating “a world external of mind” with “an actuality.” You concept of what “actuality” means is entirely derived from your theory of an external world. Nobody has said that “actualities” do not exist; I’m making the case that “what is actual” doesn’t mean what you insist it means.

Between the two of us, I’m the only one pointing at an “actuality;” mental experience is an unarguable actuality. You’re pointing at what can only be an hypothetical world inferred from that actual actuality and mistakenly claiming your inference is itself the “actuality.”

PS: A simulation world is an actuality [or, given PC games etc a sub-actuality], being based on a computational substrate.

Who here except you has asserted that expeirences under MR is a “simulation?” The word “simulation” is meaningful only if what you are experiencing is not the actual thing. Under MRT, our experience is the actual thing, not a “simulation” of something else. It is only under ERT that our mental experiences are necessarily simulations of an external world. You are the only one asserting that our mental experiences are simulations, not me.

When you have an argument or evidence that is not entirely comprised of a mental inference from a mental experience, let me know. Otherwise, you are not referencing anything “actual” other than stuff in mind.

69. 69
JVL says:

William J Murray

I have a question: where does the energy necessary for all this mental processing come from? Outside of the mind doing the processing?

You’re also reifying a model of behaviors for what causes the behavior itself.

Um . . . explain to me how your memories and recollections are stored so that you can retrieve them? You’re not experiencing them all all the time so there must be some storage and retrieval system? How do you remember how to type and talk and where you parked your car? All the data you can recall about your favourite sports teams . . . where is that when you’re not accessing it? And how do you access it?

70. 70
William J Murray says:

Let me throw down some clear logic here.

IF what is “actual” or “real” is external of mind, the only thing we can possibly be experiencing is a mental simulation (or representation) of what is actual or real.

The only format by which we can be directly experiencing anything actual or real, is if what is actual or real is entirely mental in nature.

71. 71
kairosfocus says:

WJM, I slightly adjust for emphasis: >>the existence of contemplations cannot eliminate possibility of [physically — energy dynamics, spacetime driven — instantiated] actualities, and our experience indicates that we are amphibian, minded cybernetic loop entities in [such] an actuality. [We routinely distinguish dreams, visions, thought exercises, simulations and our shared life in waking, common reality.] There is no good reason to dismiss that common experience, especially given the self-referential impact of grand delusion . . . . A simulation world is an actuality [or, given PC games etc a sub-actuality], being based on a computational substrate.>> KF

PS: See how the catch 22 operates? Write a simple statement and it will be scanned to insert objections, parse out such in more elaborate detail , and you are tediously complicated — and likely given a Wilsonian side-step. Note, above, I took time to draw out the relevant distinctions, starting with possible worlds then spoke to what physical instantiation would require.

PPS: Our experience is an interaction between our conscious awareness and the physically instantiated actuality in which we are present. That world is prior to our individual existence [which is embodied] and our collective existence as a race. It is independent of particulars of our subjectivity, and is thus objective, with independent reality. That does not imply independence of the Creator, who as a good God, will not systematically delude us, i.e. he is not the trickster of philosophical demonology.

72. 72
William J Murray says:

JVL @69,

That’s a big ask for a big explanation under my model of MRT. The idea of what “memories,” “storage,” and “retrieval” mean, with regard to your question and how it is posed, is rooted deeply in ERT space-time continuum concepts. To increase the difficulty by an order of magnitude is the fact that I have to use a language that is itself deeply imbued with the ERT (which means, external of (universal) mind) conceptualization.

Under my MRT, all possible information and all possible experiential translations of that information simultaneously coexist as what one might refer to as the “zero-point.” The zero-point is not “in” or “part of” a space-time continuum; space-time continuums are experiential products of instantaneous processing of information into an experiential format for consciousness to be able to have sentient existence.

Part of that sentient experience most often requires the concurrent experience of what we call “memories,” which provide a kind of pattern recognition. You’re probably aware that memories change, in fact we are constantly editing our memories. We are capable of clearly “remembering” things that other people assure us did not happen, or which might conflict with video or photographic evidence.

Memory experiences occur in the same manner that “now” experiences occur, the instantaneous selection and processing of sets of data that eternally exist in the now at the zero point. We don’t “store” them or “retrieve” them, we access information in the now by turning our attention, or having it turned, directionally, towards a category of information. This information is processed by our current (a word that has intractable ERT space-time reference, but what other word can I use?) state of “programming” that is responsible for our “now” experience of “self and other.” This is why memories change, why we can “invent” new memories or have zero recollections of things that we supposedly did or were involved in. The memory process is fluid both in terms of what data is being accessed and how it is being processed into what we experience as “memory.”

73. 73
William J Murray says:

KF said:

There is no good reason to dismiss that common experience,

Nobody is dismissing that common experience. What is being challenged is how “common experience” is generated.

We routinely distinguish dreams, visions, thought exercises, simulations and our shared life in waking, common reality

Again, nobody is challenging this. All I am doing is changing the label of the category “our shared life in waking common reality” experiences.

See how the catch 22 operates? Write a simple statement and it will be scanned to insert objections, parse out such in more elaborate detail , and you are tediously complicated

When have I complained about you being “tediously complicated?”

Your lengthier arguments appear to me to be about building a case for “good reason to believe a world external of mind exists” as if I’m making a case that there is not “good reason” to believe that; there is good reason to believe that – for pete’s sake, KF, the good reason to believe that is staring all of us in the face every second of every day. Do you think I’m denying that?

There is good reason to see ourselves as having individual minds, interacting through a physical medium that is independent/external of individual minds. Please stop trying to make the case for “good reason” to hold that worldview because OF COURSE there is good reason to believe it. It’s a well-functioning worldview. It’s been extremely successful (apparently) for tens of thousands of years if not longer; it’s difficult to interpret it as anything else.

You can’t “make a case” for the ERT worldview any better than “it’s how we all operate functionally and it’s staring us in the face every second of every day.” I agree to the apparent obviousness and our apparent necessary functioning “as if true” of the ERT model.

Other than “good reason” to believe in some form of ERT, your main objection to MRT is that it more easily leads to “grand delusion.” I can’t take that claim seriously, KF, because you seem completely uninterested in understanding my MRT whatsoever. As far as I can remember, you haven’t asked me a single question in terms of explaining it, or in terms of its own internal logic, in well over a year now.

Did you read my 600 page book that details all the aspects of my MRT? I doubt it, because I haven’t written any such book, so you can only be making a “grand delusion” argument against what you imagine my MRT to be and entail. And, your “grand delusion” arguments aren’t even made from the MRT perspective; they’re made from the assumption of ERT using ERT conceptualizations.

It’s taken me decades to develop my MRT, experiment with it, bounce it off of various criticisms in various venues, etc. It’s incredibly difficult to overcome a lifetime of ERT programming and reinforcement because even the language I use to think about it is infused with ERT concepts; and you think you’re in a position to raise valid objections to it after a few pages of me saying things about it here and there in this forum over the past couple of years, after asking zero questions about it, without even a basic, charitable attempt to better understand it?

I understand you probably don’t consider it worth your time, KF, and that’s fine. But don’t act like you’re in any position to raise a valid objection to it because you don’t even begin to have enough knowledge about it to raise a valid objection. You’re like a materialist objecting to ID by saying, “but who designed the designer” or an atheist objecting to Christianity by saying “but evil exists, so God can’t be all good.”

74. 74
William J Murray says:

GR and QM are both very useful models. GR replaced Newtonian physics as a more comprehensive theory; QM rose up out of the unexpected results of experimentation concerning electrons, photons and other subatomic phenomena. Essentially, a new language and way of thinking about things, that at least appeared to be irreconcilable with GR, had to be developed. But, in so doing, we have developed entirely new technological capacities.

MRT reconciles GR and QM theories because it reorients them as being about two different things. In short, as an analogy: Newtonian physics and GR were/are about learning how to play the video game; QM is about understanding how the game itself is generated – informational data sets, coding and processing.

The value of MRT may be expressed this way: there might be different data sets, and programs that are coded differently that can be experienced; even more interesting, we might be able to learn how to choose our own desired data sets and even code our own games. That may be, in fact, what we are already doing, even if we don’t realize it.

The potential increased functional capacity under that model, if it works, is staggering.

75. 75

This is supposed to be an intelligent design blog. Intelligent design operates by choice. So you have to talk about organization in terms of decisionmaking structures, decisionmaking processes. How are things decided in the universe?

There are several ways of investigation.

Investigate the logic used in practical common discourse in regards to choosing things. This is very important, because regardless of whether it is false, it is where you are. If you find something better then still you need to build a bridge from common discourse understanding, to the better knowledge.

Investigate the mathematical ordering of the universe in terms of the number of steps it is removed from zero, nothing, nihilo. Which means to investigate what it is possible.

Investigate what possibilities have actually been decided upon, and which possibilities were negated. Actual reality.

Investigate how the universe proper, the DNA universe, and the universe of the human mind interact in decisionmaking.

76. 76
kairosfocus says:

WJM, when the veridicality of our senses and conscious awareness of the world is reinterpreted away, the common world is locked behind an ugly gulch and effectively made to disappear. As such is a major part of our operations of mind, that is resort to grand delusion,* which in turn discredits the rationality required to construct the more or less novel theory being advanced. KF

*PS: Cf the apparently swomehow related Hindu concept, Maya, here as summarised in Wikipedia: >>Maya (/?m??j?/; Devanagari: ????, IAST: m?y?), literally “illusion” or “magic”,[1][2] has multiple meanings in Indian philosophies depending on the context. In later Vedic texts and modern literature dedicated to Indian traditions, M?y? connotes a “magic show, an illusion where things appear to be present but are not what they seem”.[2][3] M?y? is also a spiritual concept connoting “that which exists, but is constantly changing and thus is spiritually unreal”, and the “power or the principle that conceals the true character of spiritual reality”.[4][5] In Advaita Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy, Maya is “the powerful force that creates the cosmic illusion that the phenomenal world is real.”[6] >>

77. 77
kairosfocus says:

MNY, design is intelligently directed configuration. Relevant intelligences act by self-motion, i.e. they are agents. There is not now a general scientific theory of agency, even though it is vital for the credibility of rationality, which relies on freedom to have a leg to stand on. A useful model for discussion is the Smith, cybernetic loop, with a two-tier controller. A further suggestion has been that of quantum influence supervening on the in the loop controller for embodied agents such as us. KF

78. 78
JVL says:

William J Murray: That’s a big ask for a big explanation under my model of MRT. The idea of what “memories,” “storage,” and “retrieval” mean, with regard to your question and how it is posed, is rooted deeply in ERT space-time continuum concepts. To increase the difficulty by an order of magnitude is the fact that I have to use a language that is itself deeply imbued with the ERT (which means, external of (universal) mind) conceptualization.

And why is our common . . . never mind, you won’t agree that anything is necessarily common.

Under my MRT, all possible information and all possible experiential translations of that information simultaneously coexist as what one might refer to as the “zero-point.” The zero-point is not “in” or “part of” a space-time continuum; space-time continuums are experiential products of instantaneous processing of information into an experiential format for consciousness to be able to have sentient existence.

So, that which is ‘experiencing’ is separate from all possible information at the zero-point? There is the information and there is the . . . process doing the focusing and interpretation? Again, all that information has to be stored and made available for perusal. I’m just wondering how that is done and where the energy comes from to maintain the storage and to power the focusing.

Part of that sentient experience most often requires the concurrent experience of what we call “memories,” which provide a kind of pattern recognition. You’re probably aware that memories change, in fact we are constantly editing our memories. We are capable of clearly “remembering” things that other people assure us did not happen, or which might conflict with video or photographic evidence.

I am very much aware of that and have some interesting experiences of my own which illustrate the phenomena very well.

Memory experiences occur in the same manner that “now” experiences occur, the instantaneous selection and processing of sets of data that eternally exist in the now at the zero point. We don’t “store” them or “retrieve” them, we access information in the now by turning our attention, or having it turned, directionally, towards a category of information. This information is processed by our current (a word that has intractable ERT space-time reference, but what other word can I use?) state of “programming” that is responsible for our “now” experience of “self and other.” This is why memories change, why we can “invent” new memories or have zero recollections of things that we supposedly did or were involved in. The memory process is fluid both in terms of what data is being accessed and how it is being processed into what we experience as “memory.”

Have you read any of Jane Robert’s Seth books? They seem to have fallen out of fashion now but were widely read (in my reality) in the 70s and 80s.

But there still has to be some kind of storage facility separate from the focusing process. The storage and the focusing take energy. How does all that work?

IF the zero-point is universal but you and I have different interpretations of the information contained therein then aren’t we separate from each other? Oh, my bad, of course you think that everyone else is just part of your interpretation of the zero-point data.

Seems to me your gestalt is unfalsifiable but at the same time explains and predicts nothing. It’s not really a scientific model and it can’t be used to tell us anything about reality. It’s a hypothesis which is not possible to verify or falsify.

But, your model of reality doesn’t explain how the structures of the model are sustained or where they exist. So it’s not really helpful.

79. 79
William J Murray says:

KF @76,

It appears you are not willing to extend the same charitable courtesy I extend you in terms of at least attempting to understand someone else’s perspective. I guess this is actually an obvious pattern; you defend your position and views, and criticize other people from the epistemological and ontological framework of your views, and that’s the totality of your significant interactions here.

WJM, when the veridicality of our senses and conscious awareness of the world is reinterpreted away, the common world is locked behind an ugly gulch and effectively made to disappear.

Absolutely, utterly and completely untrue under MRT, which you would understand if you made even a cursory attempt to understand it instead of dismissing it and throwing it into some big pile of Eastern spiritual metaphysics.

80. 80

Actually I am not really interested much in doing intelligent design science. I am really only interested in promoting the creationist conceptual scheme, the difference between matters of personal opinion and matters of fact.

So that people will acknowledge each others emotions and personal character in a properly subjective way, with a chosen opinion, judgment. Instead of people trying to objectify emotions and personal character, and measure it.

This kind of mean-spirited nazi atmosphere dominant among academic evolutionists, where subjectivity is totally discarded. These disgusting academic people who then produce disgusting personal opinions, and disgusting politics, because they have no clue how to form a personal opinion. Because of having discarded creationism intellectually, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept.

81. 81
William J Murray says:

Here’s another way of looking at MRT: regardless of where “external world experiential information “comes from,” it requires: (1) a common set of informational data, (2) a common set of protocols that accesses and processes the data in the same fashion among observers into a “shared, common, coordinated, mutually confirmable” experience.

What difference does it make if (1) you instantiate that data set and information processing protocols (that turn data into mental experiences) in a world external of mind and hook it up to to the minds of all individuals, or (2) you just hook up individual “minds” to the dataset through the processing protocols, without going to the trouble of instantiating it in an external world?

Regardless of where or how that data or the processing protocols are instantiated or located, there is zero difference in the experience of it.

82. 82
JVL says:

William J Murray: Regardless of where or how that data or the processing protocols are instantiated or located, there is zero difference in the experience of it.

Big difference though in how the information is generated and stored and accessed. BUT all those processes take energy and ERT has an explanation of where that comes from. AND it has an explanation of how the information is accessed and stored (by the ‘individuals’).

Does MRT have an explanation of where the energy comes from or how the data is stored and accessed?

83. 83
William J Murray says:

JVL @78:

Most of what you write here is based on misunderstanding MRT and applying ERT concepts (storage, energy, etc) to things they don’t apply to under MRT.

Of course MRT is a scientific model. It can be tested. It can make predictions and retro-dictions. It can be falsified by finding matter. It can be falsified by demonstrating quantum local reality. It can be supported many different ways; such as, two people sharing an experiential reality where conflicting facts exist. It can be demonstrated by finding other experiential modules, exploring them empirically and having the findings confirmed by others.

It can be experimented with both scientifically and personally.

84. 84
kairosfocus says:

F/N: notice how far afield we are of the intended focus on implication logic, deduction, explanation and linked duties in reasoning. I have become increasingly concerned that truly basic things are out of good order, leading to deep breakdowns. KF

85. 85
JVL says:

William J Murray: Most of what you write here is based on misunderstanding MRT and applying ERT concepts (storage, energy, etc) to things they don’t apply to under MRT.

I can understand why you would dodge those questions but . . . are you saying reality, at its base, under any model, doesn’t require considerations of energy and storage? OR, are you saying, like ID, that that’s not part of our hypothesis so we’re not obliged to address it?

Of course MRT is a scientific model. It can be tested. It can make predictions and retro-dictions. It can be falsified by finding matter

Only by expending energy and storage. And what’s to stop you from saying: no, that’s just a concept that’s cropped up in my interpretation of the zero-point and it may or may not be true.

It can be falsified by demonstrating quantum local reality.

Again, what’s to stop you from just thinking: nah, that’s a story that’s based on my momentary interpretation of the zero-point data, my memory may change so I can disregard it? In other words: what evidence do you accept as definitive, i.e. beyond your ability to disregard?

It can be supported many different ways; such as, two people sharing an experiential reality where conflicting facts exist.

Again, what stops you from saying: I’ve chosen to accept that OR that’s my current interpretation, it may change? How can you determine what is true and what is just interpretation of the zero-point data? Not just, can it be done, but how can it be done?

It can be demonstrated by finding other experiential modules, exploring them empirically and having the findings confirmed by others.

But you don’t accept empirical data or experiences! It can all just be part of your personal (whatever that is) interpretation of the zero-point data.

How do we get to the zero-point data and agree on it? You’ve continually said: we can’t do that, our personal experiences HAVE to be different. So, how is your personal position falsifiable? Is your position scientific?

It can be experimented with both scientifically and personally.

No because you don’t believe in common, shared and unassailable experiences.

86. 86
kairosfocus says:

JVL, the design inference is a limited, specific issue, what is on the table here is a worldview, an entirely different thing. KF

87. 87
JVL says:

Kairosfocus: JVL, the design inference is a limited, specific issue, what is on the table here is a worldview, an entirely different thing.

Yeah, I know. What are you talking about? I wasn’t bringing up the design inference at all.

88. 88
Origenes says:

W.J.Murray wrote:

It has been my experience, and is my view, that once a person understands this, they can reprogram themselves to experience any self/other arrangement they wish – as long as it is a possible arrangement. There are few things that are “not possible.”

Can you perhaps link to a post or website where I can find more information? I am very interested.
And thank you for explaining MRT.

89. 89
jerry says:

I have become increasingly concerned that truly basic things are out of good order, leading to deep breakdowns.

I haven’t read too much of this thread but what I read is that games are being played on this thread in the comments and most posts are not serious.

So what else is new.

As far as regular society, other games are being played and most who are playing them don’t share your concerns about our society which I also share. It has nothing to do with logic though so I don’t see the point of the OP.

My assessment is that the high tech people who believe they are in charge, believe they can organize a command economy with some but definitely limited freedom to achieve some other goals such as a world wide governing fixing what they believe are serious problems. They have the financial world in with them. So two powerful entities are in bed to change the world and the rest will fall in because they are being bought off.

The two groups in charge and their minions are currently well paid so do not feel any financial issues. And probably believe this will continue for the indefinite future.

The next step is to come for the guns because that is the main threat they see to their hegemony.

90. 90
JVL says:

Jerry: I haven’t read too much of this thread but what I read is that games are being played on this thread in the comments and most posts are not serious.

I would disagree with that characterisation. For the most part I think the participants have been extremely honest, albeit sometimes a bit obtuse.

91. 91
Seversky says:

William J Murray/70

Let me throw down some clear logic here.

IF what is “actual” or “real” is external of mind, the only thing we can possibly be experiencing is a mental simulation (or representation) of what is actual or real.

Exactly. That is my position.

92. 92
William J Murray says:

…are you saying reality, at its base, under any model, doesn’t require considerations of energy and storage?

I think “wanting to dodge” a question is an unfair characterization of me; I’ll answer questions honestly even when they make me look like a crazy person. I’s just difficult to explain certain concepts without a a more comprehensive understanding of the greater context. But, in short, yes, this is what I’m saying. Energy and storage space are not necessary, those concepts are artefacts of a mechanical space-time continuum worldview.

Again, what’s to stop you from just thinking: nah, that’s a story that’s based on my momentary interpretation of the zero-point data, my memory may change so I can disregard it? In other words: what evidence do you accept as definitive, i.e. beyond your ability to disregard?

You’re conflating the way I personally conduct my life for the MRT I am arguing here. I’m not arguing that people conduct their lives the way I do (ignoring evidence if I feel like it.) I’m arguing about MRT, not “how I conduct my life personally using MRT when and where I feel like it.”

Whether or not MRT is falsified by science is entirely irrelevant to me personally; but it can be falsified. Your post is conflating scientifically/empirically supporting/disproving MRT with convincing me of something.

93. 93
kairosfocus says:

JVL, the design inference on tested reliable signs is the defining core of ID, so when you made that comparison you directly implied the design inference. KF

94. 94
jerry says:

Whether or not MRT is falsified by science is entirely irrelevant

What falsifies MRT is not eating or drinking for 8 days. All adherents disappear.

I’m not sure that is science but it makes life better.

95. 95
William J Murray says:

Origenes @88:

I’m talking about my MRT. I haven’t seen anything like it anywhere else, although there are countless “manifest your reality” or “reprogram your reality” sites and books out there, their scope is almost always about improving your life here. My MRT goes far beyond that because I follow the implications much further and bring in a much wider field of evidence.

If you want to read more about my MRT, here is a collection of ongoing posts I’ve made about it elsewhere, for a more “spiritual” audience. Keep that in mind. I’m not a spiritual person myself, but I have to speak in the language of the audience – even though the last post (so far) actually indicts most “spirituality” as being essentially some form of materialism at their root. I’m in the process of examining various kinds of subconscious program modules that deeply dictate how we think and behave. You can find that ongoing collection here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17_gHVhFYAvgdCD6kD4zkzVLkB0bNr9jFoe98cssnO20/edit?usp=sharing

If you’re interested in a more academic theory about a very basic MRT drawn from the evidence of several disciplines, I’d suggest reading Bernardo Kastrup’s book, “Idea of the World.” He doesn’t really get into the implications or uses, and he often erroneously associates ERT concepts to MRT (like “evolution”,) but it’s nothing fatal – I think it’s just habit and not thoroughly thinking out the ramifications of MRT. https://www.amazon.com/Idea-World-Multi-Disciplinary-Argument-Reality/dp/1785357395

96. 96
William J Murray says:

KF @84 said:

F/N: notice how far afield we are of the intended focus on implication logic, deduction, explanation and linked duties in reasoning. I have become increasingly concerned that truly basic things are out of good order, leading to deep breakdowns. KF

In your OP, you said:

A true antecedent will only imply true consequents.
….
I reject p, but p is self evident means ~p is absurd

Moral case study and yardstick I: it is self evidently wrong, willfully wicked, inherently criminal and evil to kidnap, bind, sexually torture and murder a young child for one’s pleasure. Those who deny or dismiss or evade this do not overthrow the truth, they simply reveal their absurdities or worse.

As I’ve demonstrated, your supposedly “self-evidently true” moral statement is not self-evidently true. It relies not on self-referential existential absurdity if one denies it, but rather on an almost universally shared sentiment about the statement. Amoral people do not live in absurd self-contradiction, such as those that deny free will or that A=A.

As you have pointed out, proper implication logic requires a true antecedent; the best antecedent is a self-evidently true antecedent. Some implications thereof are not only true, they are necessarily true given that antecedent.

The problem is that your implications are not largely derived from self-evident or necessary truths; the are derived from a worldview structure built out of coherentism logic that largely utilizes appeals to “common experience,” “good reasons,” appeals to consequence and subtle appeals to a religious metaphysical foundation.

Also, your implication logic simply ignores some self-evident and necessary truths, or arbitrarily redefines or reinterprets them to correspond to your worldview structure, such as:

1. All experience occurs in mind: self-evidently true.
2. Necessary truth from #1: all scientific investigation and logical argument is about mental experiences.
3. Necessarily true from the above: the existence of any world external of mind is hypothetical in nature and is not necessarily true.

You also ignore or reinterpret:
1. We have free will.
2. Free will choices are necessarily individually preferential in nature.
3. Preferences are always about some form or system of personal enjoyment, or avoiding unejoyable situations or consequences.
4. Some systems of enjoyment place abstract (such as long term, group success, etc.) or metaphysical enjoyments preferentially above immediately accessed and direct enjoyments, but they are still about personal enjoyment, now or in the future.
5. Conscience can be implied from the above to be the tension between conflicting abstract and direct preferences
4. Morality, which is rooted in free will and thus preferential choices, and also rooted in the experience of conscience, is therefore always about a personally preferential system or balance of enjoyments in terms of direct vs abstract enjoyment conflicts.
5. Morality, while it can be called near-universal in the sense that almost all people experience conscience (the tension between the direct and the abstract,) it is still an entirely subjective arrangement.
6. Sociopaths do not have tensions between the direct and the abstract, so they do not experience “conscience.”

See, that’s implication logic from self-evident and necessary truths, without any appeals to consequence, “common experience,” “good reasons,” or subtly implying a religious or spiritual foundation.

97. 97

It is very obvious that enjoyment is subjective. Yet you are just putting it in together with what is objective, in one big mess.

The root meaning of choice is to make one of alternative futures the present. Or, it can be defined as making a possible future the present, or not.

Choosing is essentially spontaneous.

Choosing is based on logic of anticipating a future of possibilities, it is not based on logic of cause and effect.

What makes the choice is inherently subjective. So it means “joy”, does the job of making choices. It does the job of making alternative future A the present, instead of alternative future B.

As before, you are obviously just mashing up the parental advise to think about what is best, before making a choice, into the root definition of choice.

98. 98
JVL says:

William J Murray: I think “wanting to dodge” a question is an unfair characterization of me; I’ll answer questions honestly even when they make me look like a crazy person. I’s just difficult to explain certain concepts without a a more comprehensive understanding of the greater context. But, in short, yes, this is what I’m saying. Energy and storage space are not necessary, those concepts are artefacts of a mechanical space-time continuum worldview.

So . . . right now you’ve got certain things in your mind: a smell wafting through your abode, you’re processing what I’ve written and checking it for spelling, grammatical errors and whether or not it makes sense, you might be feeling a bit peckish . . . you could have lots of sensations and thoughts in your ‘mind’s eye’ at any given moment. BUT you won’t have all your memories and past experiences (or an interpretation of them since they can change) in your immediate focus at any given time. So, for instance, if I mention something evocative like ‘second grade teacher’ or ‘wedding day’ a memory or sensation comes to your mind and it probably bears some resemblance to a memory or sensation that you would have had last year if I brought up the same topic. Before you chose to ‘recall’ that memory or sensation where was it? In the great heap of zero-point data? But where is that when you’re not accessing it? I don’t see how you can get away from some kind of data storage and a separate focusing process. If you can explain how that can work I’m all ‘ears’.

You’re conflating the way I personally conduct my life for the MRT I am arguing here. I’m not arguing that people conduct their lives the way I do (ignoring evidence if I feel like it.) I’m arguing about MRT, not “how I conduct my life personally using MRT when and where I feel like it.”

No, I’m not. I’m asking how MRT can be falsified because any evidence COULD be dismissed as just a faulty interpretation of the zero-point data. So, how could MRT be falsified?

Whether or not MRT is falsified by science is entirely irrelevant to me personally; but it can be falsified. Your post is conflating scientifically/empirically supporting/disproving MRT with convincing me of something.

Sigh. IF our experiences are purely interpretations of some massive pile of zero-point data (stored how?) and I present some evidence or data which I think disproves MRT what’s to stop ANYONE from saying: this is all just in my head and I think what I perceive as having come from you is just another distorted interpretation of the root-level zero-point data. Since memories and perceptions can be ‘wrong’.

I just don’t get how you can falsify a view which says: everything is just in my head/focusing process.

If you can point me to another resource which explains that I’ll happily read it. I don’t expect you to reproduce in a text box a complicated argument.

99. 99
William J Murray says:

JVL,

Don’t confuse the analogy (computer data sets and processing programs) for the thing I’m talking about itself.

Let me try to illustrate what I’m talking about another way.

How much space do potentials take up? Where are “potentials” stored? For instance, in a two slit experiment, how much space do all the potential landing points for a photon take up? I’m not talking about the actual landing points defined by the parameters of the experiment; I’m talking about the potentials before the first photon is fired.

Let’s then look at the the “potential” landing spots of a photon that leaves the surface of distant sun; where are the hundreds of trillions of potential landing spots and trajectories stored? How much space does that take up?

Imagine a galaxy; how much space would that imagined galaxy take up, not in the brain (this isn’t Brain Reality Theory,) but in mind? Does it even make sense to think of a mental phenomena “taking up space,” or in the potential for that imagined galaxy being “stored” somewhere? Asking “where” or “how much space” mental phenomena “take up” is attempting to understand mental phenomena in terms of external, physical reality concepts. The potential for all experiences like in a single zero point mind, as Parmenides might have argued: one single thing, let’s call it “an experience,” has the potential in it for all possible experiences, because any single experience points to an infinite cascade of possible variations and contexts. IOW, identifying one thing, A=A, requires the potential of an infinite number of “Not-A’s.” Thus, the zero-point has inherent infinite potential that requires no storage or space.

Potential and mental experiences thereof don’t take up space nor does it need to be stored anywhere; it can be infinite within the zero-point. “Where” it is, and “how much space it takes up” are nonsensical questions under MRT; they are using an ERT frame of reference for that which cannot be referenced that way. One thought, one experience in mind, the most rudimentary A=A or “I am” necessarily contains the potential for every possible thing, every possible experience.

Including you, me, our having this discussion, and your words trigging my memories of certain events. All of that can be derived from that zero point, and requires no “space” in which to occur.

100. 100
Concealed Citizen says:

WJM,

given what I’ve read over the last few months, your philosophy boils down to:

1. Consciousness is primary.
2. Rational inferences may or may not be true, which makes them untrustworthy.
3. Hedonism trumps any rational inferences.
4. Lying is okay in the service of hedonism.
5. It can’t be proven there is any “objective” reality.
6. Maybe other conscious entities exist, but it doesn’t matter, given hedonism, unless it supports your hedonism.

(I’m not judging.)

Did I miss anything?

101. 101
JVL says:

William J Murray: How much space do potentials take up? Where are “potentials” stored? For instance, in a two slit experiment, how much space do all the potential landing points for a photon take up? I’m not talking about the actual landing points defined by the parameters of the experiment; I’m talking about the potentials before the first photon is fired.

I don’t think we’re quite connected on what my questions are.

Firstly, you haven’t given me any kind of resources or explanations for how your viewpoint can be falsified. I’m interested so please don’t brush it off.

Secondly, this thing about potentials . . .

If I ‘say’ to you: second grade teacher, you might think of some lovely matron spinster who had all the time in the world for her students. I might think of some creepy male figure who was strangely interested in us changing into our gym clothes. Saying ‘second grade teacher’ brings up potentials, I think. Correct me if I’m wrong. It opens up options and ‘choices’.

But then you and I might have completely different reactions to that input. We might realise completely different potentials. On the fly, not stored, not saved, just our basic reaction.

BUT . . . if we have different reactions then there is something different between our use of the input. Which means we have different programming or basic reactions. Where is that basic difference between us kept? What differentiates us considering the zero-point data?

Potential and mental experiences thereof don’t take up space nor does it need to be stored anywhere; it can be infinite within the zero-point.

But they can’t be recalled without storage. Your viewpoint asserts that everything is NOW and so you don’t have to answer the historical question. But you say your view can be falsified which requires an historical view.

Including you, me, our having this discussion, and your words trigging my memories of certain events. All of that can be derived from that zero point, and requires no “space” in which to occur.

It’s convenient to have a view which happens always in the moment. Which means it’s not falsifiable. Which means you can’t have actual history or science.

102. 102
Concealed Citizen says:

WJM,

Maybe it could be boiled down to this:

1. Consciousness is primary
2. Self interest

Even though I am committed to the Blood of the Lamb in our current “space-time game”, I can’t think of any worldview where self-interest doesn’t ultimately govern the “game.”

103. 103

No, the spirit is primary, and then there is material. Consciousness, is already a complicated concept, not a primary concept.

1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / opinion
2.Creation / chosen / material / fact

So from creationism you obtain the foundations of reasoning, which are the concepts of opinion and fact.

104. 104
Concealed Citizen says:

“Spirit” is an imprecise term that religionists and witches and 600 B.C Greeks use.

Tighten it up.

105. 105
William J Murray says:

CC,

If by “my philosophy” you mean “how I live my life,” then 102 boils it down to basics. Everything else could be said is essentially about those two things – how to employ #1 to serve #2, breaking #2 into various prioritized forms and systems of enjoyment, etc.

106. 106
William J Murray says:

JVL said:

Firstly, you haven’t given me any kind of resources or explanations for how your viewpoint can be falsified.

I listed a couple of ways it could be falsified. Find matter. Find quantum local reality.

It’s convenient to have a view which happens always in the moment. Which means it’s not falsifiable. Which means you can’t have actual history or science.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. If you find matter or quantum local reality, MRT has been falsified. I don’t get to say “well, MRT accounts for that” or “that’s just something that was in the potential.” Some things are not possible under MRT; there is no potential for the actual existence of matter or, at the root level, for anything to have innate physical characteristics.

MRT predicts that you’ll find potential at the root of every universe if you examine it down to the level of “bit-code programming,” and what extracts an experienceable “actuality” out of that potential is consciousness – and that’s exactly what we see. Further, MRT predicts that “space” and “time” are not physical limitations when it comes to information processing of potential; this is exactly what we see in QM experimentation.

There have been any number of experiments in the past 150 years or so that would have disproved MRT; and yet, they ALL fell on the side of MRT and against ERT.

107. 107
William J Murray says:

BTW, I greatly appreciate you asking these questions, JVL, because it helped me coalesce the zero-point nature of existence as one of infinite potential that necessarily exists in the zero point.

The zero-point can be characterized as “I” (or “I am” or “I exist” or “I experience.) “I” requires self-identification (the root of logic), which implies an experiential context of self and other. From that, every possible formation of self-and-other is implied as potential, which means every possible experience. “I” = 1, “other” = at least another 1, or 2; the root of mathematics.

Everything possible cascades from the root zero-point of “I,” which can also be characterized as “1” (one) or “Identity” or “point.”

108. 108
JVL says:

William J Murray: BTW, I greatly appreciate you asking these questions, JVL, because it helped me coalesce the zero-point nature of existence as one of infinite potential that necessarily exists in the zero point.

That’s kind of you to say as I felt I might be a bit pesky. OR, the shadow of another person who exists only in your mind might have been getting a bit pesky.

I going to stop asking questions because I don’t feel I’m getting my point across. I don’t see how I could prove that matter exists and not always have an out from an MRT proponent along the lines of: I don’t have to believe that because everything is just in my head and not reflected in reality at all. I don’t see what stops an MRT believer from discounting any ‘evidence’ as just a figment of their imagination . . . it’s all in your head, there is no physical reality at all.

I don’t see that MRT helps us understand reality at all; nothing is real so any law or pattern you find might just be an echo or reverberation in your own mind.

It’s like the ultimate nihilistic view: nothing matters, nothing is real, there is no point to anything.

When I used to read Jane Robert’s Seth books (which supported the idea that you ‘create’ your own reality) there was still some idea that existence had a purpose and that it wasn’t all just in your head. There were other beings and people albeit all parts or areas of ‘all that is’. Perhaps I was just less cynical then.

109. 109

The word “spirit” is meant to convey that it is inherently subjective. And the word material is meant to convey that it is inherently objective.

But the meaning of words tends to be corrupted to make it all objective. So that spirit would mean some kind of energything that can go through walls, but can be readily objectively observed, in movies.

The nazi’s also objectified the meaning of spirit and soul, that it could be established as a matter of fact of biology.

Even the word subjective is objectified, by many people. That a subjective opinion would be a statement of fact about what emotions exist in the brain. So then to state a subjective opinion that a painting is beautiful = a statement of fact that a love for the way the painting looks exists in the brain.

Meaning that subjectivity becomes a subcategory of objectivity, namely objective facts about brainstates.

So you have to be very precise about the logic that is used with words, because of this corruption.

To choose means to make one of alternative futures the present.

A subjective opinion is formed by choice and expresses what it is that makes a choice.

The substance of a creator is called spiritual.

The substance of a creation is called material.

1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / fact

110. 110
William J Murray says:

JVL said:

I going to stop asking questions because I don’t feel I’m getting my point across. I don’t see how I could prove that matter exists and not always have an out from an MRT proponent along the lines of: I don’t have to believe that because everything is just in my head and not reflected in reality at all. I don’t see what stops an MRT believer from discounting any ‘evidence’ as just a figment of their imagination . . . it’s all in your head, there is no physical reality at all.

The way you’re using the terms “reality” and “physical reality” is wrt ERT. Of course there’s a physical reality, but “physical reality” is characterized differently. MRT separates beliefs and imagination from what we experience as “physical reality.” Physical evidence either supports or undermines MRT or ERT regardless of anyone’s beliefs or imagination. People can just as easily deny physical evidence and use bad logic under ERT, and do so all the time.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding MRT and are thinking of it in terms of solipsism, or “it’s all in MY mind. That’s not MRT. MRT fully embraces the scientific investigation of that set of common experiences we call “physical reality.” MRT has a theory about what “physical reality” is and how it is generated, and that theory can be investigated and falsified independent of anyone’s particular beliefs or imagination about it.

I don’t see that MRT helps us understand reality at all; nothing is real so any law or pattern you find might just be an echo or reverberation in your own mind.

Then you don’t understand MRT.

It’s like the ultimate nihilistic view: nothing matters, nothing is real, there is no point to anything.

I really can’t understand this perspective at all, but I’m guessing it’s because you don’t understand MRT, but are thinking more in terms of solipsism.

When I used to read Jane Robert’s Seth books (which supported the idea that you ‘create’ your own reality) there was still some idea that existence had a purpose and that it wasn’t all just in your head. There were other beings and people albeit all parts or areas of ‘all that is’.

All of that is true in under MRT, so I think you have misunderstood it.

111. 111
kairosfocus says:

WJM, I have been busy locally on RW issues. I stand by the uncontroversial facets of implication logic highlighted in the OP and onward. As for your proposal for a worldview, I have already gone through my concerns point by point and see no good reason to conclude otherwise. The case of the moral self evidence of a case as given ties to the significance of attempted denial or dismissal, starting with, the implied pervasive grand delusion of conscience and self-referential discredit of mind. It makes far better, Reidian, common good sense, to take conscience seriously as a legitimate sense of mind, with typical limitations of such. That is, our sense of obligation under built in duties is real. From that, a successful framework of law linked to justice has been built and — though widely unacknowledged today — has made extraordinary contributions to advancement of government, law and civilisation. When we can move beyond hyperskeptical dismissiveness and year zero radicalism that dismisses the past, we can again begin to make sound progress. KF

112. 112
William J Murray says:

KF said:

I have already gone through my concerns point by point and see no good reason to conclude otherwise.

You haven’t expressed any concerns about my worldview; you’ve only expressed concerns about what you imagine my worldview to be, and repeatedly insist that it is my worldview whether I agree or not.

But that’s okay, KF. I know you’re busy saving the world (not meant facetiously,) and time for you is short and valuable. I’m just some guy saying crazy stuff on the internet; I can’t hold any ill will against you for allocating your time and mental faculties in the manner you do. I hope you succeed in setting the world “right;” that will be a story worth hearing over a drink in the afterlife.

113. 113
kairosfocus says:

WJM, I took time to go through one of your main presentations, point by point. My concerns remain. KF

114. 114
William J Murray says:

KF @113,

Until your concerns are expressed in the form of questions about MRT, such as “how does it avoid grand delusion” (along with some sort of definition or explanation of what you mean by “grand delusion,) then IMO you’re not being serious about actually trying to understand MRT or making a coherent case against it that I can understand.

But that’s okay. I have many other enjoyable things to do with my time 🙂

115. 115
William J Murray says:

I mean, KF, it could be that I’m misunderstanding what you mean by “grand delusion.” It may be a valid objection to MRT, but I don’t see it as such because I’m not properly understanding what you mean by it.

You have often said something along the lines of: “if we cannot trust our senses …” But, I have never said we cannot trust our senses; I’ve said that how we are modeling what senses are, and how they operate, is not actually what they are, and not actually what is going on. That doesn’t mean we cannot trust our senses.

It is not our senses that is telling us that what we are experiencing is a world external of mind; it is our model of sensory information that describes that as our situation. Again, that doesn’t make the product of sensory information unreliable or delusional; it just means a different model may be more appropriate given the evidence we now have.

Perhaps “grand delusion” refers to the supposed external physical world not being what it appears to be; unfortunately, with quantum experimentation we’ve already crossed that rubicon; whatever the external world is, if it exists, it is not what it appears to be. Again, this doesn’t mean “grand delusion” because it just means our prior models were either wrong or, at best, inadequate descriptors of what it is we are experiencing as “the world external of mind.”

Perhaps “grand delusion” means that under MRT we will be less able to discern between various categories of mental experience if we move what we call the external world into the mental world. I don’t understand that argument because “not being delusional” requires we be able to fully and reliably discern between various categories of mental experience regardless of whether or not a world exists external of mind.

Perhaps you think MRT is prone to (or a case of) “grand delusion” and self-referentially absurd because you think under MRT there is only one “self” and everything is proposed to be in the mind of that one self, like solipsism or a Boltzmann Brain scenario; but that is not what MRT proposes. There are infinite real, distinct individuals under MRT, and those that share the experience we call “the external physical world” are experiencing something real, with real values that can be investigated, confirmed and verified among the individuals involved.

So, if you have a valid point about MRT being more susceptible to grand delusions and self-referential absurdity, I don’t understand it. I’m assuming it is because you don’t understand MRT; but I could be wrong about that.

See how I did that, KF? I assumed I could be wrong about my own view, and asked you to clarify your argument so that I can better understand you. It’s a little bit disappointing that you seem to never be interested in showing that same respect and courtesy to anyone else here.

116. 116
kairosfocus says:

WJM, in our civilisation, the classic model of grand delusion is Plato’s parable of the cave. This has been refigured in recent decades through the The Matrix movies. Brains in boxes and Boltzmann brains are similar cases. Marxism, Freudianism and Behaviourism all had this challenge also. So does Crick’s Astonishing Hypothesis. Haldane’s warning on sawing off the branch on which we must all sit is relevant. Any worldview that implies or makes it significantly likely that our individual and/or collective consciousness about ourselves in our world is fundamentally, deeply incorrect, so undermines a major aspect of our rationality that it brings our mindedness into discredit. This includes undermining reason, knowledge, the moral faculty, reduction of mind to a brain-CNS computational substrate, psycho-social conditioning, genetic determinism etc etc. Obviously, it includes the Maya concept and the Kantian ugly gulch between appearance and being. In challenge to it, as at 8 above, I point to Reidian common sense: locally defeatable and open to correction but on the whole sufficiently reliable senses, faculties and awareness of our world. KF

PS: I see no good reason not to stand by my concerns https://uncommondescent.com/laws/should-we-recognise-that-laws-of-nature-extend-to-laws-of-our-human-nature-which-would-then-frame-civil-law/#comment-725627

117. 117
Origenes says:

W J Murray wrote:

Origenes: Are you saying that each one of us is actually the universal mind who is having a narrowing of consciousness?

That’s probably as good a way of expressing it as any other.

I’m going to put my concern out there, even though I expect to have misunderstood your MRT:

The universal mind ‘has’ only one I.
The I can be perceived as a form, which can have different content. Or, put more precisely, the I can focus on different aspects of its content. So, the I can ‘fill’ itself with different content and, as a result, be very different from moment to moment. However, at no time the I (universal or not) can split itself into several distinct conscious persons (several I’s). The I can only be one I (one point of perspective) at a time, otherwise there is no coherent person.
So, if you and I are both conscious persons at the same time, then your “I” and my “I” cannot stem from (let alone “be”) one “I” (a ‘universal mind’).

118. 118
William J Murray says:

Origenes @117,

There is no “I” at the top, or what one might call the universal consciousness or God level. To be an “I,” there must be an arrangement of self @ not-self, or A and not-A, or else the A cannot be identified, even by itself. The only way an “I” an be perceived by universal consciousness is in a situation where the consciousness does not experience being universal.

An individual “I” is only self-identifiable by universal consciousness’ experience in a perceived self/not-self correlational arrangement. Universal consciousness can only be “aware” in that kind of situation.

119. 119
William J Murray says:

KF @116,
The problem KF is that MRT is not like the Matrix because MRT does not claim that what we are experiencing is not reality. You keep saying that this is MRT’s problem, but you refuse to make the case even after I repeatedly inform you that what you claim about MRT is not what MRT itself theorizes.

Any worldview that implies or makes it significantly likely that our individual and/or collective consciousness about ourselves in our world is fundamentally, deeply incorrect, so undermines a major aspect of our rationality that it brings our mindedness into discredit.

Did the change from the Ptolemaic model to the Copernican undermine a major aspect of our rationality that brought mindedness into discredit? Did finding out there is no actual “matter” in what we call the external physical world undermine a major aspect of our rationality that brought mindedness into discredit? Did closing the “local reality” loopholes, the results of quantum eraser and delayed-choice experiments undermine a major aspect of our rationality that brought mindedness into discredit?

You keep saying that MRT does this, but you do not explain how it does so any more than these other changes in our conceptualization of the nature of what we are observing/experiencing. Until you do this by saying what MRT says/assumes, and how that necessarily leads to undermining a major aspect of our rationality and brings mindedness into discredit, you’re not making the case that it does so.

Tell me what MRT specifically says that necessarily leads to what you claim it leads to.

120. 120
kairosfocus says:

WJM, the issue is that the embodiment, physical world and interaction with it would all be non-veridical. I have no problem with being minded, embodied creatures or with the root of reality being a mind, but the projection of in effect a dream show that has no veridicality, i.e. there is no physical world independent of our minds that forms a common cosmos in which we inhabit becomes an undermining of credibility of our senses, consciousness and intellects. KF

121. 121
William J Murray says:

KF,

Please explain how our interaction with the physical world would be non-verdical under MRT.

122. 122
William J Murray says:

KF, I am attempting to understand your objection, so I ask the following questions:

Let’s say that, arguendo, we move the category of experience we currently conceptualize as “a world external of universal mind” into universal mind as a common informational set operated on by a common set of translation and processing protocols across billions of observers/experiencers.

How does that make our relationship to the physical world “non-verdical,” or “dream-like?” Does conceptualizing it that way suddenly render scientific investigation inoperable? Do you lose the capacity to distinguish that set of experiences from other sets of experiences, like dreams, imaginative fantasy or logic? Do you lose the ability to have your investigative results verified and confirmed by other people?

Does that change in conception ruin how logic works somehow? Does it somehow violate logic? Isn’t knowing the “truth” about anything ultimately a processing of information (wherever we conceptualize that it comes from) through the protocols of logic?

123. 123
Origenes says:

W J Murray #118 wrote:

There is no “I” at the top, or what one might call the universal consciousness or God level. To be an “I,” there must be an arrangement of self @ not-self, or A and not-A, or else the A cannot be identified, even by itself. The only way an “I” an be perceived by universal consciousness is in a situation where the consciousness does not experience being universal.

I may disagree. For clarity, an “I” does not require a perceived “arrangement of self @ not-self”. The experience of “I”, of self-awareness, does not require a distinct not-self (dreamed or otherwise). Identification of “I” can be obtained by looking inward. For instance: I am not a thought. I am causing my thoughts. Thoughts are an aspect of my self, they are my thoughts, but I am not a thought.

Related is the following (from #39):

Any individual, consciously aware experiencer requires two things; a “self” and an “other,” or the experiencer and the experienced; two sides (subject/context) of the same coin: the experience.

It is my opinion that the “I” is exactly the solution to the duality problem you are alluding to. Self-awareness is not an experience which requires “self” and “other”. In self-awareness there are no distinct items; including “experiencer and the experienced”. Put another way, self-awareness, the “I”, is unanalyzable. The I which observes the I is already (necessarily) observed by the I itself. IOWs observer and observed are one and the same. “I experience I experience”. In self-awareness subject and object are one.

124. 124

It’s better to ask the question “what do I say things really are?”, than to ask the question “how are things really?”

Because if you ask the question of how things really are, then you just end up fantasizing complex nonsense, which nonsense bears no relation to what you say is true in common discourse. And you always end up with duplicity between your common discourse understanding of things, and your intellectual understanding.

The first order of business is to investigate the logic used in your own common discourse. Investigate what it is that you say is true, rather than investigate what is actually true.

And there is no doubt about it that common discourse is based on creationist logic.

Then knowing that what you say is that creationism is true, you can bargain between scientific findings or philosophical ideas, and creationism, to perhaps attain a better understanding than creationism, of how things really are.

But it is shown that creationist logic simply works perfectly, and never is there any idea or scientific finding that improves upon it. There are only dumb ideas that are much worse than creationism, specifically ideas that undermine subjectivity in general, making people’s emotional life turn to shit.

The flying spaghetti monster, it is an idea intended to throw out all what is subjective, because of it not being objective. And about 100 percent of ideas questioning how things really are, are of this sort, to prioritize objectivity and to shaft subjectivity. Ideas to totally mangle, discredit, and annihilate subjectivity.

125. 125
William J Murray says:

Origenes @123,

At the universal consciousness level, what does the word “internal” mean? What comprehensible value does it signify, when there is no “external” to provide it meaningful context? It is part of an concept that is inapplicable to the universal consciousness or universal mind perspective.

So, if we remove the inapplicable term “internal,” what are we left with? You are not your thought. You are the one experiencing the thought. Self and other (other not being describable in terms of internal or external) are required for even the most fundamental, primordial experience of experiencing a thought.

Any thought … even “I” … the observer or experiencer of the thought is not the thought; it is represented by the thought (in that particular, primordial thought.) The observer is not the representation of the observer the thought “I” refers to. Self and other: the actual (ineffable) observer, and the representation of the observer in the thought, “I.”

Dualism is the necessary fundamental arrangement of any individual experience. At the root level of “I” it separates self from a representation of self. Calling it “internal” is a meaningless characterization at the “universal consciousness” level.

126. 126
kairosfocus says:

WJM, non veridical is plain if there is no physical world independent of our dreams. KF

127. 127
William J Murray says:

KF said:

WJM, non veridical is plain if there is no physical world independent of our dreams.

Under MRT, there is a physical world independent of our dreams. So, what are you talking about?

128. 128
Origenes says:

W J Murray #125:

Self and other: the actual (ineffable) observer, and the representation of the observer in the thought, “I.” (…) Any thought … even “I” … the observer or experiencer of the thought is not the thought.

Indeed. So, I suppose, we agree. For identifying the “I”, there is no (perceived or real) distinct not-“self” necessary. IOWs the universal mind does not have to get into dream scenarios, where he (mistakenly) thinks that independent external worlds and minds exist, in order for him to have an “I”-experience. For self-awareness it’s enough to make a distinction between the “I” and e.g. thoughts.

Dualism is the necessary fundamental arrangement of any individual experience. At the root level of “I” it separates self from a representation of self.

Show me how this works. I say (and have argued) that self-awareness is unanalyzable, you don’t seem to agree.

Calling it “internal” is a meaningless characterization at the “universal consciousness” level.

This is the fourth time in one post that you argue against the term “internal”. I did not use that term.

129. 129
William J Murray says:

Origenes @128,

I was going on your word “inward.” Without an “outward,” inward has no contextual value. Please substitute inward and outward for internal and external in the comments you refer to.

The reason I argue that dualism is required for self-awareness is based on the logical argument that for anything to be identifiable, there must be the perception of both that thing and not that thing. This is related to the inward/outward relationship that is required for either term to have value or meaning.

If all one is aware of is self, and is not aware conceptually of not-self or a representation of the potential for not-self, what does it mean to be “self-aware?” Being aware requires being aware of something, does it not? Can one be said to be aware of something that has no comparative or contrasting context? How would that be accomplished?

This is why I put it in terms of the simplest awareness; self and representation of self. But further, how does one even think in terms of “I” if there is no comparative or contrasting “not-I” context whatsoever? What does it mean to say “I am” if there is no (at least conceptual) “not-am” for the “am” to provide any meaning?

Even at the root level, before words, how does one even have a vague, primordial sense of “self” without having some sense of “not-self” potential within which a sense of self can be manifest as a basic value?

130. 130
kairosfocus says:

WJM, we are all aware of a common world external to and independent of our individual selves that is independent of even our particular existence. That is, it was there before we were born and continues past the death of those who have died. The reasonable inference is, that much the same will be when we move off the stage. In that world, we experience a particular body as our own, distinct from other bodies. This leads to the mind body issue. KF

131. 131
William J Murray says:

KF,
So far, you haven’t said anything that conflicts with MRT.

I guess I can safely conclude it’s not me that doesn’t understand your objection; it’s you that doesn’t understand MRT. But, that’s hardly surprising, since you’ve never asked a single question about it.

132. 132
jerry says:

So far, you haven’t said anything that conflicts with MRT.

Eating, drinking and especially breathing.

133. 133
Origenes says:

W J Murray wrote #129

The reason I argue that dualism is required for self-awareness is based on the logical argument that for anything to be identifiable, there must be the perception of both that thing and not that thing.

I agree.

If all one is aware of is self, and is not aware conceptually of not-self or a representation of the potential for not-self, what does it mean to be “self-aware?”

The self is one thing with aspects. At the highest level there are two aspects: form and content. Content has several aspects such as reason, feelings, perception, force and so on. By self-awareness I mean the form who perceives itself. Perhaps the correct term is “form-awareness”. Self–awareness is about the form, not the content. It is not about e.g. a thought ‘who’ perceives itself.

Being aware requires being aware of something, does it not?

It usually means being aware of something else. It usually involves a subject and a (distinct) object. However, self-awareness, or form-awareness if you prefer, is an exception to that rule. Here subject and object are one.

Can one be said to be aware of something that has no comparative or contrasting context?

The form who perceives itself, the “I”, can distinguish itself from its content (e.g. thoughts). So, there is “I” and “not-I” (a thought). It can say: ‘I am not a thought.’

Even at the root level, before words, how does one even have a vague, primordial sense of “self” without having some sense of “not-self” potential within which a sense of self can be manifest as a basic value?

I agree with you on this one. If “self” means the entire being (form and content), which in the case of the universal mind means everything there is, then I think that the concept of “self” will be problematic to the universal mind.

134. 134
kairosfocus says:

WJM, Let me clip from my Mar 7 comment:

{{>>Outlining A Functional Mental Reality Theory Posted on October 10, 2020 Author William J Murray Comments(34)>>

23: I take this to be a primary, in outline, source.

>>By accepting the fundamental, unequivocal logical fact that our experiential existence is necessarily, entirely mental in nature, and accepting the unambiguous scientific evidence that supports this view,>>

24: The point of departure, taken as a summary thesis, [a] that reality is monist, here mind (presumably, with local centres of self-awareness as described and commented on); [b] that this defines “experience” as “entirely mental”; [c] scientific findings support this view.

25; Monist views all face the issue of reduction of diversity to the one actual reality without entailing a thesis of grand delusion for our sense of individuality. Materialistic monism as well as mind-monism. Brahman is Atman, etc too. [–> notice, the maya issue]

26: Where, if all experience is entirely mental, it is caught up in that circle, there can be no corroborating scientific evidence external to mind, esp if the self-aware centres doing the science at least as extensions of mind, are delusional. Science and its empirical findings collapse.

>>we can move on to the task of developing a functioning and useful theory of mental reality.>>

27: Now, deeply problematical.

>> I will attempt to roughly outline such a theory here, with the caveat that trying to express such a theory in language that is thoroughly steeped in external, physical world ideology is at best difficult. >>

28: If language makes it hard to say something, that may be a clue . . . .

>>IMO, the phrase “we live in a mental reality,” once properly understood, is realized as a self-evident truth. Self-evident truths cannot be “disproved.”>>

30: Self-evidence claim.

31: The self evident is understood by those of reasonable mature experience as true once stated due to the meaning of what is stated, as necessarily true of order 2 + 3 = 5 [e.g. spread your five fingers into a two and a three then cluster together again], and as such on pain of immediate, patent absurdity on attempted denial.

32: MRT, regrettably, has none of these characteristics. It is not a general consensus of mature persons, it is not suppressed by clinging to absurdities such as we see for those who despise the concept of objective truth and knowledge, etc. It is a member of a particular family of worldviews, subject to bristling with difficulties and so to facing comparative difficulties.

33: What is undeniably self evident is that we are self aware, and that such self-awareness is primary and the context in which we become aware of ideas and experiences, including of our in common world. So, casting hyperskeptical doubts on the ability to think truly, logically and with responsible warrant is self-referential and self-defeating . . . }}

My understanding, i/l/o the above and much more, has been that you deny the independent reality of a physical world that exists in its own right, beyond your or my perceptions, inferences etc. A world that, albeit fallibly, we can credibly access through our senses and describe accurately enough in many cases. Where, part of our sense and observation about the world is that we are embodied creatures in it, minded, en-conscienced, with bodies that obey the ordinary laws of physical matter.

That is not to deny that that world shows signs of being designed and made by a powerful, intelligent being, indeed that we have good reason to hold such as finitely remote source of worlds, of necessary being character. Where, worlds such as ours are radically contingent. It is just, to take seriously our evident embodiment, the general effectiveness of our senses and minds [as opposed to implying infallibility] and the common experience that we inhabit a world in which the island of Montserrat is not merely a shared dream, the rooster and his harem of hens outside my window are real, so are the family of agoutis who share the property [God’s natural clowns], likewise the iguanas, the mango trees, the coconut trees, the bananas, breadfruit, cashew trees etc, old Mr Soufriere hills puffing away, the seas hitting the coast this morning, the stiff March wind, the sun, the stars, Texas, Siberia, Oxford University, CERN, my family, your family, humanity, and more.

For cause, I point out that any scheme of thought that asserts, implies or invites a grand delusion claim about key aspects of external reality, our senses and/or our rational faculties is self-referential and self-defeating. I have no more reason to doubt the reality of a neighbour’s dog barking away out there [or Ms Foxy who DV I will see later today by a friend’s place . . . I swear she recognises English and speaks it with her eyes], or to doubt the senses that tell me about these fellow creatures — and I recall Max and Prince, long gone now — than to doubt the basic credibility of my rational faculties that I use to make sense of these things.

Indeed, yesterday, in following up on a point in a book on boat building, when I had to spend time in a bank, I made some better sense out of a discussion on cones to map part of the hull; after years of unsatisfactory trying. Then, later, a check online led me to find some software that may help me design wooden plug baits for a hobby. (NURBS . . . )

That is a concrete mental experience tied to a practical issue, specifying curvy shapes for carving, thence why not look at CAD based authoring that would likely help with balancing even.

Now of course, perhaps the points I highlighted above do not capture your actual views, maybe you mean that in Him we live and move and have our being, and that He upholds all things by his word of power, i.e. in science we seek to think his creative and providential, sustaining thoughts after him, where these humbler creatures of animality, or vegetable or mineral nature do hold an objective existence in their own right independent of our own views. Maybe mental reality undergirding the world is compatible with such an external world then.

KF

135. 135
William J Murray says:

KF said:

25; Monist views all face the issue of reduction of diversity to the one actual reality without entailing a thesis of grand delusion for our sense of individuality. Materialistic monism as well as mind-monism. Brahman is Atman, etc too.

Yes, such views face that challenge. MRT faces that challenge and overcomes it by showing how individuals exist that are distinct from each other; how experiential worlds such as this one exist which provide the capacity for independent interaction and verification, scientific investigation and analysis, and which provides for verdical understanding of both the processes within that world and those that generate that world itself.

This is because the “monist one reality” accepts that there are different categorical qualities of mind within mental monism that can be verdically distinguished from each other.

You said that “grand delusion” was not being able to discern between reality and dreams; under MRT, reality and dreams are easily distinguishable from each other, just as imaginative fantasy and logic, both entirely mental phenomena, are easily distinguished from each other.

27: Now, deeply problematical. …

Being “problematical” doesn’t mean the problem is insurmountable, but here the problem is that you haven’t taken the time to understand it; you’ve just slapped your boilerplate perspective on it without taking the time to ask a single question about it.

28: If language makes it hard to say something, that may be a clue . . . .

Now you’re venturing into negative insinuations made from mischaracterizations. I didn’t say “language” made it hard. I said a language that is steeped in a different conceptual basis made it hard, as one would expect. The “clue” here is that it is a difficult concept to understand because of that, and that one should reserve objection until one better understands it by asking questions about it, which you still have yet to do.

MRT, regrettably, has none of these characteristics.

How would you know? You’ve never even made a rudimentary attempt to understand it. This is clearly evident when you explicitly state your understanding of MRT:

My understanding, i/l/o the above and much more, has been that you deny the independent reality of a physical world that exists in its own right, beyond your or my perceptions, inferences etc. A world that, albeit fallibly, we can credibly access through our senses and describe accurately enough in many cases. Where, part of our sense and observation about the world is that we are embodied creatures in it, minded, en-conscienced, with bodies that obey the ordinary laws of physical matter.

MRT doesn’t deny any of that.

So, nothing else you have to say on MRT matters, KF, because you have just admitted you do not understand it.

136. 136
William J Murray says:

Furthermore, F, because you have just admitted that you don’t understand what “mental reality” means, you don’t understand what it means to say “it is self-evidently true that reality is mental in nature.” Therefore, you don’t get to make a case against it because you don’t understand it.

At least I have a well-developed theory of mind, KF. Do you have a theory of mind that is unambiguous and can be discussed here and argued? Does it go beyond vague assertions and broad, ambiguous categorizations? Does it examine what mind is, how it works, how it operates, with unambiguous models of how various aspects of mind interact and function?

Somehow, I doubt it, because like materialism, your semi-materialist perspective seems to require mind be kept ambiguous in nature and operation so that it can just be used to fill in the gaps wherever and however required by your ideological commitments.

137. 137
jerry says:

you don’t understand what “mental reality” means,

It’s kind of near impossible to understand gobbledygook.

138. 138
AndyClue says:

@Jerry:

Eating, drinking and especially breathing.

Could you explain how this conflicts with MRT?

139. 139
jerry says:

Could you explain how this conflicts with MRT?

It means there is a world outside of one’s mind that is real and important and independent of the person and affects how one behaves and thinks.

140. 140
AndyClue says:

@Jerry:

It means there is a world outside of one’s mind that is real and important and affects how one behaves and thinks.

Isn’t it what WJM calls the “shared data set”? (post 39)

141. 141
jerry says:

Isn’t it what WJM calls the “shared data set”?

I haven’t got a clue what he is talking about because it is all nonsense. The amazing thing is that some are taking what he is saying seriously and replying as if it means something that’s real.

142. 142
kairosfocus says:

WJM, monism does not escape the issue of the one and the many. In this case, diverse forms of existence. Conscious beings, material objects [far more than shared data . . . in fact, the data are not shared generally (think, physicists, chemists and engineers vs the rest of humanity!)], abstracta such as core mathematical entities, etc. That in your view there may be diverse centres of self-awareness has no relevance to the pivotal matter of evident denial of a physical world in which we as members of an embodied race participate through the gift of life. That’s part of why I have again pointed to the Smith, two tier controller cybernetic loop model as a useful frame for discussion. KF

143. 143
William J Murray says:

KF @142,
All you are doing is arguing against inferences I’ve already explicitly said are incorrect, about a theory you’ve clearly demonstrated you do not understand.

At least I make a good faith effort to try to understand the perspective of others, KF. You’re not even trying.

But, that’s not why I participate here anyway, so c’est la vie.

144. 144
Origenes says:

Argument against MRT:

1. In order to find the truth, it is mandatory for a person to be in control of his mind.
2. Those who seek the truth must assume to be in control of their minds or give up on finding the truth.
3. In order for any mind to be one coherent thing there must be only one center point of control. If there are multiple points of control (if it e.g. consists of multiple persons at the same time) then it cannot be one coherent thing.
4. According to MRT the universal mind consists of multiple persons — multiple points of control — at the same time.

Therefor

5. According to MRT the universal mind is not one coherent thing.

145. 145
kairosfocus says:

WJM, kindly tell us whether you accept that there are real physical objects independent of our perceptions, opinions and simulations/dream states of core mind etc and constituting a real physical world in which we exist as embodied creatures. Not, whether such worlds depend on a creator with high intelligence for their beginning and for sustaining them, whether they are in effect comparable to a 3-d computer simulation or a dream writ large. That is, when I walk up to the door, put a key in it, open it, walk outside across a lawn, get into a car and drive down to the beach in Carr’s Bay, pull a fishing rod, cast and catch say a pompano, despatch, scale and clean it, bring it back, cook and eat said fish, is that all a dream or simulation or are the events and experiences interactions with other equally real material or embodied entities? Those questions of a dream world or simulation are the messages that your assertions tend to communicate, and raise the onward question of grand delusion. KF

146. 146
jerry says:

question of grand delusion.

In the movie “The Sting” the characters are all coordinating to perform the “Big Con.” Here we have an example by someone trying to perform the “Big Troll.”

Aside: highly recommend the movie “The Sting.”

147. 147
William J Murray says:

Origenes @144:

I’m not sure what case you’re trying to make. Is it that from the perspective of universal mind, truth cannot be discerned because existence is incoherent? Are you making the case that truths or coherence cannot be discerned from individual perspective? Not sure what you’re referring to – truth about what? Coherent how, from what perspective?

148. 148
William J Murray says:

KF @145:

If you’re looking for MRT to be explained in terms of ERT, that can’t be done. That’s like trying to explain quantum theory in terms of Newtonian physics.

The theory is really pretty simple; it’s just conceptually difficult to understand for someone steeped in habitual external-world thought.

Let me see if I can break this down to simplistic values. Whatever “the objective physical world” is, the only thing we can possibly extract from it is information. For that information to become comprehensible experience, there must exist semiotic translation protocols that turn information – wherever it comes from – into comprehensible experience.

Thus, any world theorized to exist completely external of any mind (universal or otherwise,) it must contain information somehow instantiated in it, whether that medium is matter, energy, or quantum fields of probability. But, it doesn’t matter how it is instantiated, or what on or in, all we get from it is the information. Information is abstract in nature.

Second, semiotic translation protocols must exist that successfully retrieves that information and translates it into comprehensible experience. It doesn’t matter how those protocols are instantiated, semiotic protocols are abstract in nature.

Now we have, under MRT, an external (of all mind) world instantiated with abstract information and abstract semiotic protocols that deliver to us a comprehensible set of experiences.

How are those experiences so well-coordinated and verifiable and mutually measurable and comprehensible, even under ERT? All observers must be not only accessing the same set of information, the same set of abstract semiotic protocols, or the semiotic interface between the experiencers and the set of information, must be the same or very nearly the same.

It doesn’t matter how that information or the interfaces are instantiated; at their root, they are abstract and must be the same across observers (at least to a very large degree.) Same information set, same semiotic translation interface.

Now, let’s take the exact same dataset that is supposedly instantiated in a world external of all mind, keep it as a distinct set, and move it into mind. It is still completely distinct from other data sets in mind. Let’s do the same with the semiotic translation protocols; they still exist, intact, as the translation interface between a person and that data set.

The data set and protocols, the other people, all continue to exist when I die. The data set and the protocols are not the same as dreams, or accessing and using logic, or accessing and using imaginative fantasy or memories. Memories can be said to be about the same data set, but the protocols are different. Logic and math are their own distinct data set, even though they are used in the “external world” data set and processing protocols.

The data for the tree exists whether or not anyone is looking at the tree. So, the tree is real. The experience of the tree is real. It can be measured and scientifically investigated across all users because they are accessing the same information using the same translation protocols.

“Grand delusion” doesn’t creep in because we can tell the difference, and verify the difference, between one categorical set of experiences (data set & translation protocols) and another because they are different, actual things in universal mind. What we call “the objective, physical world” is an identifiable, real thing that actually exists regardless of who is, or is not, observing it.

We can identify people with faulty translation protocols, or who are suffering a breakdown in distinguishing between the “objective world” information and other sets of information (imaginative fantasy, memory, dreams, hallucinations, etc.)

As far as your “monist” objection, here’s an ERT analogy: vaporous, liquid and solid forms of H2O are all made of the same stuff, but they are distinctly different things. Just because “it’s all made of mind” doesn’t mean there isn’t any variety or that there isn’t different kinds of stuff we can use to navigate and evaluate our experiences. You can identify the difference between the solid, physical world (ice) and the more vaporous or ephemeral (imaginative fantasy,) even if they are ultimately made of the same essential stuff – information – and translated through their own protocols. Logic is qualitatively different from memory and dreams, even though no would would argue that those experiences are not all three entirely mental in nature.

149. 149
kairosfocus says:

WJM,

at the heart of your answer is the Kantian ugly gulch between appearance and reality. There is an answer that was given over 100 years ago, and which was drawn to your attention already.

For reference:

We may agree, perhaps, to understand by metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole [–> i.e. the focus of Metaphysics is critical studies of worldviews] . . . .

The man who is ready to prove that metaphysical knowledge is wholly impossible . . . himself has, perhaps unknowingly, entered the arena . . . To say the reality is such that our knowledge cannot reach it, is a claim to know reality ; to urge that our knowledge is of a kind which must fail to transcend appearance, itself implies that transcendence. [–> this is the “ugly gulch” of the Kantians] For, if we had no idea of a beyond, we should assuredly not know how to talk about failure or success. And the test, by which we distinguish them, must obviously be some acquaintance with the nature of the goal. Nay, the would-be sceptic, who presses on us the contradictions of our thoughts, himself asserts dogmatically. For these contradictions might be ultimate and absolute truth, if the nature of the reality were not known to be otherwise . . . [such] objections . . . are themselves, however unwillingly, metaphysical views, and . . . a little acquaintance with the subject commonly serves to dispel [them]. [Appearance and Reality, 2nd Edn, 1897 (1916 printing), pp. 1 – 2; INTRODUCTION. At Web Archive.]

There is no good reason to infer that the testimony of our senses is wholly untrustworthy, which is another more roundabout way of leading to grand delusion and its consequences. If our mental processes and consciousness are suspect on the whole, there is no firewall and once any major faculty of mind is discredited, mind is discredited.

If we cannot trust that we are appeared to cashew treely or breadfruit or mango or guava treely per presence of relevant treeness, we cannot trust that we are appeared to cashew tree datasetly either. So either we trust that defeatably in detail but veridically on the whole, our awareness of the world puts us in contact with a credible reality or we undermine even our rationality.

This is essentially the same issue with the parable of plato’s cave, level one grand delusion undermines credibility of mind so the freed prisoner cannot take his next level as trustworthy either.

Then, that perception of credibility breakdown goes to level three suspicion, and we have an infinite regress in progress.

Hyperskepticism defeats itself.

Instead, we start with the common sense view that our senses though limited and prone to error in detail, on the whole are working soundly in their appropriate environment and will deliver generally credible results. They cannot guarantee perfection and they are not detecting the atomic-molecular level etc, but at scale and in their reasonable context they put us in contact with a common world that we can take to be part of reality.

Of course there are signals, signal processing, etc. That doesn’t mean we cannot take them as credible just because they are informational and information is an abstraction riding on relevant analogue signals which per Weber-Fechner are typically roughly logarithmic and vary in frequency sensitivity.

KF

150. 150
Lieutenant Commander Data says:

William J Murray
KF @145:

If you’re looking for MRT to be explained in terms of ERT, that can’t be done. That’s like trying to explain quantum theory in terms of Newtonian physics.

The theory is really pretty simple; it’s just conceptually difficult to understand for someone steeped in habitual external-world thought.

Let me see if I can break this down to simplistic values. Whatever “the objective physical world” is, the only thing we can possibly extract from it is information. For that information to become comprehensible experience, there must exist semiotic translation protocols that turn information – wherever it comes from – into comprehensible experience.

Thus, any world theorized to exist completely external of any mind (universal or otherwise,) it must contain information somehow instantiated in it, whether that medium is matter, energy, or quantum fields of probability. But, it doesn’t matter how it is instantiated, or what on or in, all we get from it is the information. Information is abstract in nature.

Second, semiotic translation protocols must exist that successfully retrieves that information and translates it into comprehensible experience. It doesn’t matter how those protocols are instantiated, semiotic protocols are abstract in nature.

Now we have, under MRT, an external (of all mind) world instantiated with abstract information and abstract semiotic protocols that deliver to us a comprehensible set of experiences.

How are those experiences so well-coordinated and verifiable and mutually measurable and comprehensible, even under ERT? All observers must be not only accessing the same set of information, the same set of abstract semiotic protocols, or the semiotic interface between the experiencers and the set of information, must be the same or very nearly the same.

It doesn’t matter how that information or the interfaces are instantiated; at their root, they are abstract and must be the same across observers (at least to a very large degree.) Same information set, same semiotic translation interface.

Now, let’s take the exact same dataset that is supposedly instantiated in a world external of all mind, keep it as a distinct set, and move it into mind. It is still completely distinct from other data sets in mind. Let’s do the same with the semiotic translation protocols; they still exist, intact, as the translation interface between a person and that data set.

The data set and protocols, the other people, all continue to exist when I die. The data set and the protocols are not the same as dreams, or accessing and using logic, or accessing and using imaginative fantasy or memories. Memories can be said to be about the same data set, but the protocols are different. Logic and math are their own distinct data set, even though they are used in the “external world” data set and processing protocols.

The data for the tree exists whether or not anyone is looking at the tree. So, the tree is real. The experience of the tree is real. It can be measured and scientifically investigated across all users because they are accessing the same information using the same translation protocols.

“Grand delusion” doesn’t creep in because we can tell the difference, and verify the difference, between one categorical set of experiences (data set & translation protocols) and another because they are different, actual things in universal mind. What we call “the objective, physical world” is an identifiable, real thing that actually exists regardless of who is, or is not, observing it.

We can identify people with faulty translation protocols, or who are suffering a breakdown in distinguishing between the “objective world” information and other sets of information (imaginative fantasy, memory, dreams, hallucinations, etc.)

As far as your “monist” objection, here’s an ERT analogy: vaporous, liquid and solid forms of H2O are all made of the same stuff, but they are distinctly different things. Just because “it’s all made of mind” doesn’t mean there isn’t any variety or that there isn’t different kinds of stuff we can use to navigate and evaluate our experiences. You can identify the difference between the solid, physical world (ice) and the more vaporous or ephemeral (imaginative fantasy,) even if they are ultimately made of the same essential stuff – information – and translated through their own protocols. Logic is qualitatively different from memory and dreams, even though no would would argue that those experiences are not all three entirely mental in nature.

My friend , you are so lonely. Start a family.

151. 151
Origenes says:

WJM, allow me to restate/simplyfy:

1. According to MRT the universal mind consists of multiple persons at the same time.
2. A person is in control of his own mind.

therefore, from (1) and (2)

3. The universal mind is a thing with multiple centers of control at the same time.
4. Any mind (conscious or not) which has multiple centers of control is like a ship with multiple captains — is not one coherent thing.

Therefore, from (1), (3) and (4)

5. According to MRT the universal mind is not one coherent thing.

152. 152
William J Murray says:

LCD @150,
Happily married for 31 years. 6 children, 13 grandchildren, 2 great-grandchildren, 3 living siblings, 1 deceased, providing many nieces and nephews. I’ve had one of the most wonderful family lives any human being on the planet has ever been blessed with. Is it important that you negatively characterize everyone you disagree with, or am I a special case?

153. 153
William J Murray says:

KF @149,

None of that remotely, logically applies to MRT as I’ve outlined it, for reasons already given many times and outlined above.

154. 154
William J Murray says:

Origenes @ 151,

I still don’t know what you mean by “one coherent thing.”

155. 155
Origenes says:

W J M wrote:

I still don’t know what you mean by “one coherent thing.”

What I mean is something quite simple. For instance, a person with one “I” —— IOWs one center of control —— is coherent, as opposed to a person with multiple “I’s”. Similarly, a country with multiple presidents is incoherent.
As I understand it, MRT claims that the universal mind is one thing, it is a unity which does not consist of parts. Unity in this sense does not square with multiple centers of control.

156. 156
William J Murray says:

KF complains that there if there is a gulch between what our senses tell us and what really is, it leaves us in a delusional state.

Is that what occurred when we found out that the “solid world” we interacted with, including our own physical bodies, is comprised of 99.9% empty space?

Is that what occurred when we found out that there is no actual “matter,” or even “energy,” at the subatomic level, just a quantum field of potential?

KF is trying to make the case that it is intrinsically delusion-causing if one adopts the model that what we’re interacting with, at its root, is information. I fail to see how that perspective is qualitatively different, in terms of what we commonly experience not being comprised of that which we previously thought, than how scientific exploration has changed our perspective in the past on this very matter.

The physical world we experience is still real and verifiable whether it is, at its root, made of solid atoms, 99.9% empty space and .1% energy, quantum fields of potential or information. It is still entirely separable from other categories of stuff. Individuals are still individuals. Truths and facts can be ascertained. Scientific research is unimpaired. Faulty reasoning, perceptions, delusions and hallucination can still be identified.

MRT doesn’t represent any greater a potential for “grand delusion” than any other perspective that has the above separable and identifiable qualities.

157. 157
William J Murray says:

Origenes,
If I lead you to believe that about MRT, I apologize.

An analogy I gave to KF above might help to understand my position more clearly. All water is comprised of the same thing; H2O. There are different forms of H2O; solid, liquid and vapor. Those are different things comprised entirely of the same essential thing.

There is no “control” at the universal mind level, because there is nothing to control – everything possible exists: every possibility, every choice, every action, every perspective, every variation.

Also, under MRT the only “coherent” existence is at the non-universal level, where experience is a logic map of cascading exclusionary systems of A and not-A. At the universal level, every A would experientially co-exist with every not-A, so that’s not a coherent situation that can be experienced.

158. 158
kairosfocus says:

WJM, macro solidity is entirely compatible with that being a field interaction effect. A solid is not a uniformity, it is an entity that can maintain shape and volume under ordinary forces such as weight and contexts such as the atmosphere. Liquids, hold size but not5 shape as they flow under their own weight. Gases hold neither size nor shape, they flow or expand into any containing volume. KF

159. 159
William J Murray says:

KF @158:
“A field” of what? Energy? “Energy” or “atomic forces” are descriptive models of effects and patterns of behavior. Models do not cause the experience of solidity. All you have are descriptions of effects and patterns of behavior masquerading as the cause of experiential qualia.

What causes experiential qualia is processed information. Those patterns of information (fields, energy, forces) are caused by immaterial rule-sets that organize and process immaterial information. This is painfully obvious at this point.

You keep pointing at the pattern as if the pattern causes the pattern. You keep pointing at descriptions as if the description is causing what you are describing.

160. 160
William J Murray says:

As far as whether or not any delusion-causing “gulch” is generated, it makes no difference if we model what is going on as the interaction of atomic billiard-balls bouncing off of each other, fields of forces and energy in largely empty space interacting, quantum potentials interacting, or a set of information being processed by protocols into experiential qualia.

The ironic thing is, that last model is the root of what is going on regardless of how any other model “instantiates” those commodities. A set of information is being processed by protocols into experiential qualia no matter what it looks like or how you dress it up.

161. 161
kairosfocus says:

WJM forces are palpable and fields are measurable, it is not mere models. Did you do the classroom exercise of iron filings on a sheet of card with a magnet underneath? KF

162. 162
Origenes says:

W J Murray wrote:

“… everything possible exists: every possibility, every choice, every action, every perspective, every variation.”

Why is this the case? What explains the existence of everything possible?
I guess your answer is “the universal mind”. If so, my follow-up question is : why is the universal mind in the business of producing ‘everything possible’?

163. 163
kairosfocus says:

WJM,

159: >>What causes experiential qualia is processed information. Those patterns of information (fields, energy, forces) are caused by immaterial rule-sets that organize and process immaterial information. This is painfully obvious at this point.>>

160: >>A set of information is being processed by protocols into experiential qualia no matter what it looks like or how you dress it up.>>

That our senses use sensors to transduce signals from the environment and from within our bodies [proprioception] to help us orient ourselves in the world (and in the process per Weber-Fechner on sensing fractional changes, thus implying roughly logarithmic compression] does not entail general inaccuracy or suggest that our picture of the world beyond ourselves is fundamentally dubious.

Part of the issue is, distinct identity.

We each can and do identify oneself vs otherness, we sense our embodiment in many ways, and we sense the limits of oneself . . . though there is a reasonable argument that we do project a field of conscious awareness beyond our bodies and that this can come to our attention from time to time.

We recognise others who are as we are, of course in the two complementary sexes. That leads to communication, family and society. As a part of that, as we have limited lifespan, reproduction involving coitus, gestation, child birth, nurture and education is part of that enduring social reality; all pivoting on our biological embodiment. So is nutrition. So is moving around and being active, with limitations and frustrations that fit a pattern of economic issues. All of this and much more is in a common space and world, which contains a world of objects with their own distinct identities.

This leads to the issue of the one and the many, unity, diversity, distinction on cosmos scale.

First, when two apparent things are indistinguishable we identify them as the same. This happened with the dawning recognition that the morning and evening wandering stars [planetos means wanderer] are the same object at different phases of its cycle relative to another wanderer, Sol. Obviously, Venus has different characteristics from Sol, and from another wanderer, Mars, not to mention Luna. It took thousands of years to construct a coherent, empirically satisfactory understanding of our solar system, including realising that we too inhabit another wanderer, orbiting Sol in a more or less slightly disturbed ellipse. In the course of which, we developed instruments called telescopes that exploit empirical laws of refraction and reflection to augment our natural vision.

Those instruments are a crucial case study. They hold distinct identity, are open to adjustment, have various errors of refraction due to dispersion [different speeds of light for different colours], effects of shape, and even effects of light itself, e.g. diffraction phenomena associated with images. A whole sub science of physics, optics emerged from this and from similar challenges of microscopy. As a result, today, one can spend several hundred to a few thousand dollars and acquire a Schmidt-Cassegrain, short tube, computer mounted 5 or 6 to 10 or 12 inch telescope that far exceeds anything Newton, Galileo et al could dream of. And yes, we still have Newton’s two-inch reflector to compare.

So, we have here something that is distinct from us, is an instrument of observation, has limitations and yet clearly gives a highly useful, substantially accurate picture of objects on and beyond our world. That picture is then integrated with our body of understanding and knowledge to construct an understanding of the wider universe. Binoculars are a typical case of applied telescopes used here, e.g. when our current family car was on the way from Japan on a certain ship, I could track Internet reports and one day saw it was W of here, heading for Guadeloupe. I fetched a pair of binoculars, went outside and looked offshore near Redonda. There she was, just like in the online pictures, with all the obvious signal and information processing in a not fully reliable global inter-network of computers.

A case of surprising apt synthesis involving the whole world.

Similarly, anatomists, for centuries, have dissected our visual system and that of animals of many kinds. We find the eye is similar to a close relative of the telescope, the camera, using a flexible lens with variable focus and an array of luminosity and three [or in rare cases four] colour sensing elements, generally fitting the Munsel colour spindle model with RGB sensors. (Originally, used by USDA to analyse soil colour of all things. But then, that ties to soil chemistry.)

There is a network of nerves serving as communication wires that convey signals to parts of the brain that process and integrate signals into a whole, in ways that helped to inspire smart sensing technologies, which we again know to be imperfect but adequate for purpose — see your smart phone and say QR codes.

Turning to hearing, we see the same use of an array, here based on resonance of hair cells that are in an array that creates a rough fast fourier transform, again integrated and recognised by smart networks that have inspired speech to text systems. Likewise, for taste and touch, with differing sensor physics. As an extension, the emerging sensory picture is integrated with a similar arrays based sensing of internal bodily state.

All of this points to the Reidian picture: we have good reason to accept that we are embodied, conscious creatures with intelligence, able to adequately sense features of the world and of our internal state. Not perfect, adequate.

If we are beyond 40 or so, we are most likely familiar with the before/after effect of putting on corrective glasses. And with how the latter picture comports well with our memory — another adequacy rather than perfection — of earlier days with sharper vision.

There is utterly no good reason to construct a synthetic framework in which we cannot take those adequate senses or the fusion into an awareness of our embodiment in a common world as adequately accurate. Further to which, the resulting inferred false consciousness or at least dubious consciousness does directly point to questions of grand and successive delusions in infinite regress.

On inference to best explanation, we have adequate but not perfect senses and awareness of ourselves in our common world.

Yes, I here point back to the role of implication logic from OP. Here, at literal world-VIEW synthesis level.

KF

164. 164
kairosfocus says:

PS: You tell me this is not the difference imposed by overcoming a limitation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qIRMCHabYQ Where, I add, that I have several pairs of dark glasses for different purposes, often reverting to neutral filters for certain purposes, Amber and green ones for others, and duly note different colour balances. Then, there is the effect of polarising lenses, which allow me to see the plume from the volcano, which is normally lost against the general haze. Note the test here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyzy5phg54Q

165. 165
William J Murray says:

KF @163 & 165,
Let me know when you realize that our conversation is not about you trying to support your worldview.

166. 166
William J Murray says:

KF @161,
“Palpable” is an experienced effect. The formation of the iron filings is an effect. The term “force” is a label for a description that models these effects, including how they affect our senses. The model of the behavior is not the cause of the behavior.

167. 167
William J Murray says:

Origenes @162,

It’s not that its in the business of doing so, it cannot help but do so because the potential for every possible thing is inherently part of any possible thing (the cascade of A’s and not-A’s.) Universal mind/consciousness at that level cannot make decisions; it cannot say “these experiences, not those” or “this thing, not that.” Therefore, all.

168. 168

I guess all possibilities exist from the perspective of nothing. And all possible decisions on the possibilities, also exist. But then there is a difference between what is possible, and what has actually been decided upon. The science about what is possible is the more pure science, than the science about what has been decided, because what is decided is arbitrary.

It’s the more pure science that something could go either left or right, than to denote the fact that in this instance it went left.

So there is the ordering from zero, in terms of what is possible from zero. Logical steps how much something possible is removed from being a single nothing. Then there is some deviation from what is most probable to occur from zero, the actual chosen reality. Then this chosen reality has it’s own possibilities.

169. 169
kairosfocus says:

WJM, I have adequately pointed out the fatal crack in your suggested scheme, it leads first to one then a regress of grand delusion inferences, undermining rationality. There is no good reason to hold the testimony of our senses about our common world fundamentally dubious tantamount to false. KF

170. 170
William J Murray says:

KF @169,

There is no good reason to hold the testimony of our senses about our common world fundamentally dubious tantamount to false.

Only, MRT does no such thing, so there is no “crack.” MRT holds the testimony of our senses about our common world as non-dubious and real. It holds the common world as non-dubious and real.

After the discovery that the non-dubious, common world is not comprised of indivisible, concrete material “atoms,” but was 99% “empty space,” a new model of that non-dubious world revealed by our senses was required. The discoveries made by quantum physics research have required new models of that non-dubious world revealed by our senses.

MRT is such a model. It doesn’t make the non-dubious world dubious; it doesn’t make our sensory capacities of that world less reliable.

All you are doing is claiming it is so without demonstrating that it is a necessary logical implication of MRT. To do that, you’d have to argue from MRT, which means asking questions about it until you can at least understand whether or not your objection is even valid (it isn’t.)

I realize that’s what MRT may look like from the perspective of your worldview, but that isn’t a valid objection. Until you undermine MRT from the inside, from it’s own premises, nothing you say about it matters.

Certainly, defending your worldview is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

Can you tell me, from it’s own internal logic, drawing from it’s own premises, how MRT is logically faulty?

1. All things as information, experiences and consciousness exist in the realm of universal mind.
2. What we experience as the objective, external world is a discrete set of shared information translated by discrete, shared protocols into shared, verifiable, discrete experiences of that information set.
3. This makes that world and the individuals experiencing it real and objectively existent, able to be scientifically investigated and mutually verified.
4. There are other discrete categories of mental phenomena, like logic and imaginative fantasy, that have their own distinct qualities which are easily identifiable and distinguishable by observers.
5. Delusion occurs when one cannot successfully identify and distinguish between two or more categories of mental phenomena, such as between the “objective world” and imaginative fantasy or hallucination.
6. Even under ERT, all experiences supposedly of ERT are mental experiences; thus failure to discern between the mental experience of an external (of mind) world and fantasy or hallucination is still failure to discern between categories of mental experiences.
7. Thus, MRT has no more of a burden than ERT in safeguarding against against delusion.

Now, if you want to argue logically against that, you don’t get to bring in “ERT” concepts or argue from that perspective. Show me how the logic fails internally.

That we may be almost universally mistaken about the nature of what we are experiencing is no more an argument that MRT is delusional than our being mistaken about matter being the foundation of what we call the objective world represents a prior or current “delusion.” A misconception or a mistake does not a delusion make.

171. 171
William J Murray says:

We can go at this another way; by proposing that world exists that is external of mind. IOW, the information for that set of mental experiences is instantiated, or encoded, in some non-mental substrate.

The claim is that that set of information coded into a non-mental substrate is access by our senses and, through a set protocols, represented accurately as qualia, or experiences that occur in mind.

What does that addition bring to the table? Absolutely nothing. In fact, it brings in unnecessary additional problems.

For instance, ERT necessarily means that we are not, and cannot be, directly experiencing that external world; all we can hope is that our mental representation of that world is accurate; that the information we get from it, and our processing protocols, are accurately simulating that external world as representational qualia.

Under ERT, the representational qualia are not reality; they are a simulation (representational mental qualia) of the reality we don’t have direct access to.

MRT defines “reality” (at least in terms of the objective, common world) AS the common, shared, non-dubious, scientifically investigable and mutually verifiable experiences of the information set. IOW, we are directly experiencing reality – which is defined as “shared data set processed via the same protocols into mutually consistent qualia.” Under MRT, that is the definition of the reality of what we call the objective world.

Under MRT, we are directly experiencing reality; under ERT, we can only be experiencing a simulation of a reality we can never hope to verify or directly access.

Yet, KF argues that one of the pitfalls of MRT is that it renders “reality” to be a simulation, when it is actually only MRT that can offer us direct experiential access of reality.

172. 172
kairosfocus says:

WJM:

I pause to comment:

>>Only, MRT does no such thing, so there is no “crack.” MRT holds the testimony of our senses about our common world as non-dubious and real.>>

1: You shift goal-posts here to the signal as processed is the focal reality, the matter is the general veridicality of what our senses testify to in relevant context, our macro-scale reality.

>> It holds the common world as non-dubious and real.>>

2: On your repeated arguments, that is not the case, you are here trying to redefine the world to perceptions thereof and to substitute perceptions as focal reality. Instead, our perceptions help us navigate and appropriately adapt to reality, e.g. the car rushing down the road out of control as we try to cross the street.

>>After the discovery that the non-dubious, common world is not comprised of indivisible, concrete material “atoms,”>>

3: The common macro scale world has solids, liquids, gases (and other more exotic phenomena such as plasmas and glasses etc). As I noted, solidity has to do with volume and general shape retention [neglecting elastic deformation etc for the moment], liquidity with volume conservation but without ability to resist shear leading to flow under its own weight. Gases can have identifiable mass but retain neither shape nor volume. Those phenomena are fundamental in their own right, have reality as such.

4: The conception of the atom, ab initio, was an abstraction: halve a body of some substance, halve again, repeat. Can that continue without limit or will it hit an ultimate. The Greek rejection of infinite successive finite stage process in particular and of the infinite as concrete actuality in general led them to identify an indivisible, a-tomos.

5: Subsequent refinement led to distinguishing mixtures from compounds and elements thence identification of molecules and atoms. A compound came from atoms of diverse elements and was the base particle of the substance like water. Atoms were the base particles of elements like O2 to O + O. Beyond, ions affect electron configuration and nuclear transformations change elements.

6: So, solidity is a structural phenomenon, a composite effect, as is liquidity [in effect enough holes that flow becomes readily possible]. Borders of objects are set by intermolecular repulsions, and are again an interaction that explains how the macro phenomenon arises, it does not undermine its reality.

7: So, material objects are composed of spatially arranged, interacting atoms in space, with various energy related characteristics. For instance, colour.

>> but was 99% “empty space,”>>

8: That the constituents of atoms are wavicles with field phenomena does not undermine that there is a macro-level solidity, it is the physical source of how solidity arises.

>>a new model of that non-dubious world revealed by our senses was required.>>

8a: No, we gained insight into how solids come to be and why they have the properties they have. That did not replace solidity with something else.

>> The discoveries made by quantum physics research have required new models of that non-dubious world revealed by our senses. >>

9: The quantum results give us insight into the micro level, and how that works to build up the macro level.

10: This weirdly echoes the micro macro economics debate. Just because we can go down to transactions and markets [already aggregation] does not make the macro phenomena vanish, poof. There are times of prosperity, growth, recession.

>>MRT is such a model. It doesn’t make the non-dubious world dubious;>>

11: No, you have NOT discussed in terms of a theory of sensation and perception tied to intellectual reflection but in terms of replacing “external reality theory” with your preferred “mental reality theory.”

12: it is that radical switch pivoting on categorising and dismissing of “external reality theory” as which is questionable and self-referentially self-undermining.

>>it doesn’t make our sensory capacities of that world less reliable.>>

13: The substitution leads straight to the radical doubt of the common physical world we inhabit, sense and interact with.

>>All you are doing is claiming it is so without demonstrating that it is a necessary logical implication of MRT.>>

14: I have explicitly identified that the explicit denial, the making out to be highly probable or the simple invitation to inference that our perceptions and experience of the physical world are alike opening the door to grand delusion. I have even included another perception, conscience.

15: There are no firewalls in the mind so any undermining of the general veridicality of a main faculty of mind undermines the mind.

16: Yes, we are prone to particular errors but any scheme that cultivates corrosive general doubt is self-defeating.

17: Hence, my pointing to the common sense balance and to the parallel of imperfect instruments such as the telescope.

>> To do that, you’d have to argue from MRT,>>

18: Not at all, one may infer implications or invited ideas without adopting a theory.

>>which means asking questions about it until you can at least understand whether or not your objection is even valid (it isn’t.)>>

19: I and others have read your presentations. We have raised concerns. We see your responses.

20: The fundamental concern can be seen in the first case from simply your contrast of external vs mental reality and attachment of theory. The doubt you cast on external reality by reducing it to a theory is readily apparent and the grand delusion issue instantly arises.

21: I believe in consciousness, it is my experience and a reasonable inference from others around. I believe in rationality beyond GIGO-limited blind dynamic-stochastic processing of computational substrates; which cannot account for rational responsible freedom. I believe my senses on the whole and with due limitations etc give a generally true window on reality that is independent of me and is shared with other creatures.

22: That is pre-theoretical and part of how I can theorise. So, theories that undermine or invite undermining, will slide into self-referential grand delusion.

KF

173. 173
William J Murray says:

KF said:

The substitution leads straight to the radical doubt of the common physical world we inhabit, sense and interact with.

That’s all that a reality external of mind can ever be; a theory. There’s no way to directly access it. I’m not “reducing” it to a theory, MRT just recognizes that fact. All experience occurs in mind. Whether or not it is “of” something external of mind is, and can only ever be, at best, a theory. There’s no escaping that fact. It is entirely reasonable to believe in that theory, but even if everyone believes it, it’s still a theory people believe in.

The substitution leads straight to the radical doubt of the common physical world we inhabit, sense and interact with.

It’s obvious it does so for you; there is no MRT proponent I know of that doubts the “common physical world we inhabit, sense and interact with,” we just hold that it is occurring in universal mind via a different process than we currently believe it to be.

But I’m interested; what do you think the ramifications of this “doubt” or “grand delusion” are going to be? Let’s say Jack switches from ERT to MRT; what are the consequences you’re warning against? How might they manifest? Jack recognizes all of the same rules of physics, logic and mathematics; those things are real rules that govern his “objective world” experience. He can still err in his mathematics; he can still get injured or die if he ignores the physics. Jack still believes that other people are in fact other people, other self-willed individuals interacting in the same world as he. Jack can still tell the difference between dreams, imaginative fantasy, the “objective real world,” memories, logic, math, etc.

Can you give me some examples of how this “radical doubt” or “grand delusion” will manifest and how it will represent a problem or an issue if Jack adopts MRT?

174. 174

Data processed into qualia eh? The objective processed into the subjective?

Again, everyone must first investigate the logic used in ordinary common discourse, and then they can fantasize whatever theory they want, but then explaining the difference between their theory and the logic used in common discourse.

You are not allowed to use words from common discourse, without building a bridge from the logic used in common discourse, to your new theory. So that the words can be transported, redefined in terms of your new theory.

And there is no doubt about it that common discourse is based around creationist logic. Which logic works perfectly fine, which is why everyone uses it.

175. 175
William J Murray says:

KF, I have questions for you @173, in case you missed them.

176. 176
kairosfocus says:

Later, I just noticed.

177. 177
kairosfocus says:

WJM:

First up on the corrosive doubt block:

That’s all that a reality external of mind can ever be; a theory. There’s no way to directly access it. I’m not “reducing” it to a theory, MRT just recognizes that fact. All experience occurs in mind. Whether or not it is “of” something external of mind is, and can only ever be, at best, a theory. There’s no escaping that fact. It is entirely reasonable to believe in that theory, but even if everyone believes it, it’s still a theory people believe in.

Let’s go in steps:

>>That’s all that a reality external of mind can ever be; a theory.>>

1: Do you see what you suggest and invite? Yes, corrosive hyperskepticism, the ghost that haunts Western thought. A ghost that needs exorcism and dismissal, not entertainment.

2: Start with, we are AWARE of an external world through our consciousness, but that is the same means by which we are aware of our inner life, our mindedness.

3: That’s a unity . . . and if there were a dichotomy, the door would open to the usual unbridgeable ugly gulch challenge. That’s why I have kept saying, there is no firewall in the mind.

4: In short, we see self-referentiality and the problem of spreading dismissive doubt. Doubt on the whole, and grand delusion crouches at the door, a lion seeking all to devour.

5: Instead, then, we need a Reidian principle of common sense credulity. Yes, we may err in detail and can use other things to correct, especially based on what is self-evident. But to entertain doubt on the whole is self-referentially fatal and absurd. Grand delusion.

6: Anything that asserts, implies, suggests that a major faculty of conscious mind is delusional opens up spreading self-referential hyperskeptical doubt, undermining rationality itself.

7: Such can safely be dismissed as self-referentially absurd and self-falsified.

8: Once such is accepted, we have no good reason to dismiss the same on the whole awareness of the external world, than we have to dismiss our inner self awareness and rationality or for that matter the voice of sound conscience pointing to first duties.

9: Duties, that even the objector inescapably appeals to to gain rhetorical traction, in trying to dismiss them:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. “Inescapable,” as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Namely, duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour; so also, to fairness and justice etc. Of course, there is a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that’s why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. That we sometimes seek to evade duties or may make inadvertent errors does not overthrow the first duties of reason, which instead help us to detect and correct errors, as well as to expose our follies. Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law, then, is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, “natural law,” coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of “self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator” in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate’s cynical “what is truth?”: truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence — in key part — the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.

>> There’s no way to directly access it.>>

10: Ugly gulch fallacy, leading to grand delusion.

11: We have no better reason to dismiss our sense of being embodied in a physical world on the whole, than to dismiss our similar awareness that we are rational, responsible, en-conscienced, self-aware communicative creatures.

>> I’m not “reducing” it to a theory,>>

12: That is what you argued in your opening words.

>> MRT just recognizes that fact.>>

13: Theory = fact fallacy.

>>All experience occurs in mind.>>

14: More exactly, experience is a conscious, self-aware, rational process, which applies to one’s inner life and to one’s sense of embodiment in a physical world equally.

>> Whether or not it is “of” something external of mind is, and can only ever be, at best, a theory. >>

15: Oops, swivelled back again.

>>There’s no escaping that fact. >>

16: Back around again.

>>It is entirely reasonable to believe in that theory,>>

17: Ah, a concession. But what is the key issue, it is that we must begin with what is not susceptible of further proof and with the consciousness that is pivotal to both the experience of awareness and that of reasoning to conclusion, the general veridicality of consciousness, subject to correction in detail indeed [for, error exists is self-evident], but also anchored on self evident first facts, principles, duties etc.

>> but even if everyone believes it, it’s still a theory people believe in.>>

18: We believe we are conscious, rational, self-aware, conscience guided, responsible, significantly free creatures embodied in a physical world because that is a massively evident experience and because it is grossly irrational to entertain corrosive doubt about any major facet of that whole.

KF

178. 178
William J Murray says:

KF said:

17: Ah, a concession.

A concession? Perhaps if you haven’t really been paying attention. I’ve said this before, right from the start. I’ve also said that just because something is reasonable to believe that doesn’t make it (1) true, or (2) the better model. It’s reasonable to believe a lot of things; that ERT is reasonable to believe in doesn’t add any anything to an argument against MRT.

10: Ugly gulch fallacy, leading to grand delusion.

I’m not sure how a self-evidently true premise (all experience occurs in mind) leading to a necessarily true statement (wherever the information for those experiences come from, it is processed into experiential representations in mind) culminating in a sound conclusion (thus, any proposed “external world” is necessarily a theory about where that information comes from) can possibly represent an “ugly gulch” or a “grand delusion.”

The fact that it is entirely reasonable to believe that theory is true does not change the above logic that dictates it is necessarily a theory. Some theories are so well evidenced that they are considered facts, but they are still theories.

11: We have no better reason to dismiss our sense of being embodied in a physical world on the whole, than to dismiss our similar awareness that we are rational, responsible, en-conscienced, self-aware communicative creatures.

You are being vague with your wording here. “…no better reason to dismiss our sense of…” MRT doesn’t ask us to dismiss any sense. ” “a physical world on the whole” what does “physical world on the whole mean?” What are you specifically talking about? A material world external of mind? MRT fully accepts our sensory embodiment in a common physical world; it just accepts that world is not comprised of either matter or energy at its root; it is comprised of information.

I think what this translates into is that MRT doesn’t see the physical world as being comprised of what you hold it to be comprised of, and that it doesn’t exist where you believe it exists; and that our senses don’t operate the same way (although they produce the exact same results) as senses in your worldview.

I think you’re mistaking your view as the only possible arrangement that can provide a bulwark against delusion (or “grand delusion,”) but outside of insisting it does, you fail to show either how it does so other than repeating claims about it (such as your above claim that it “dismisses” our embodied sensory involvement in a mutual physical world) that simply are not true.

Under MRT:
1. there is an objectively existing, mutual physical world subject to scientific investigation and verification; which can be easily discerned from other mental phenomenal;
2. Other individuals with free will exist;
3. Logic and math still apply and exist as universals;
4. The self is a distinct being capable of rationally navigating both the objective physical world and other mental experiences, whether or not they are physical and mutually verifiable, living ultimately in a world of universal mind where all of this takes place and where the rules that govern everything else exist beyond the scope of any individual experience; they in fact govern and provide the ground that allows individual experience to occur at all.

Nothing about that, as far as I can tell, is self-referential. Nothing about that arrangement makes logic fail or represents an ugly gulch of potential grand delusion. We’re not wrong that a physical world we live in together exists; that is not what MRT claims. It just claims that the nature of that physical world is different than what we previously thought, in exactly the same manner that Newtonian physics, general relativity, or quantum experimentation, has shown us that the physical world is not, and does not operate in a manner, as what we previously believed.

I await your response to the second part of my comment where I ask the questions about the ramifications of the “grand delusion” you keep referencing.

179. 179
kairosfocus says:

WJM,

let us symbolise, C: -> conscious awareness, I –> the self with its inner world, We –> our local world, W, any particular world, and onward.

C: (I + We)

Notice, the common factor, C:. If you doubt it for We, there is no firewall on I, so discredit to C: in general is fatal.

Now, our reasonings and thoughts are in I, and would fall under the discredit. Including mathematics etc. Indeed, rationality, which is reflexive thus self referential.

To trigger general delusion as touching any major aspect of C: is self-defeating.

KF

180. 180
William J Murray says:

KF: MRT doesn’t doubt the conscious self-awareness of the self or of others. It doesn’t doubt the existence of a physical world self and others are mutally engaged in. So, what’s the problem?

181. 181
kairosfocus says:

WJM, the problem is C:(I UNION We) as in C: is not divided by a firewall, whatever boundary you impose conceptually. I am aware of myself in my world, including others like myself, a unified context of life. Once you move beyond yes, there is room for detail corrections to there is a grand delusion or doubt — much the same thing, here — affecting a significant aspect of our awareness, you undermine the same mind, the same consciousness you must rely on. That is a form of the pronlem of one and many. KF

182. 182
William J Murray says:

KF,
So, I don’t see a problem. The firewalls are of course still there; they’re just not made of the same proposed stuff as the firewalls under various ERT models. IOW, as an analogy, ERT proposes the firewall is hardware; MRT proposes the firewall is software. Either way, the firewall has to provide access between self and other, so both are to some degree subject to potential corruption.

That’s a long way from making the case that MRT necessarily leads to greater risk of “grand delusion.” After all, even the hardware firewalls are ultimately managed by software.

183. 183
kairosfocus says:

WJM:

I don’t see a problem. The firewalls are of course still there; they’re just not made of the same proposed stuff as the firewalls under various ERT models. IOW, as an analogy, ERT proposes the firewall is hardware; MRT proposes the firewall is software.

Empty speculation, ad hoc resort.

In the one and the same moment that I am aware of myself typing, I am also just as aware of doves cooing, a rooster crowing, a car driving up the hill and the cool flow of morning air as daylight level rises. Even as I am aware of a mild headache and a complex of thoughts ticking away in the background connected to policy issues. That illustrates the unity of awareness, we focus attention, we do not have a firewall.

Once a view discredits a significant sector of C:() it is undermining it. That is instantly delf-referential and crumbling into grand delusion.

What makes better sense is to see that there are limited limitations as we are error prone, whilst refusing any concept that would collapse C:() into grand delusion, including by way of invited doubt. And, the suggestion, maybe there is a firewall in software then becomes selectively skeptical. We can have fallacies in reasoning and can make errors of perception etc indeed but we have no good warrant to resort to that which explicitly is or invites grand delusion.

There is no good reason to reject the union, C:(I UNION We) — on further pondering I thought + is a bit simplistic.

That is, we are self aware including that we are embodied creatures with effective senses in a physically instantiated world. A world we sense through our classic five senses and have a sense of 3d location, orientation etc. Where, yes some think that raises issues on mind-body-world interaction, but the Smith, two tier controller cybernetic loop model gives a framework in which we can profitably discuss such.

Particularly, once quantum influences are on the table.

In short, there is more than good enough reason to take the common sense view of ourselves in our world seriously, despite the materialists/physicalists [rational freedom] and despite what seems to be idealism [awareness vs Plato’s cave grand delusion].

Yes, we are error prone and sometimes irrational, sometimes mistaken, but such do not justify self-referentially incoherent burning down of the whole house to roast a pig. (The Chinese have a story on discovering roast pig and the invention that you don’t have to burn a house to get the desired dish.)

KF

184. 184
William J Murray says:

KF,

Ascribing perspectives to MRT from your ERT worldview (such as, that MRT “denies” or holds as an “error” our experience of a common physical world) that it does not have, and continuing to defend your own worldview in a debate that is not about that subject, is not a sound logical argument against MRT. It just represents your apparent inability to understand that MRT does not do what you keep insisting it does, even after being corrected repeatedly.

I can see why you keep insisting that MRT considers such things “self-referential,” prone to delusion and some kind of major sensory “error.” Like quantum theory, MRT represents a significantly different way of thinking about the nature of our physical world and the experiences we have of it. It’s difficult to get out of ERT headspace and consider MRT on its own terms.

185. 185
Origenes says:

W J Murray wrote that according to MRT,

“… everything possible exists: every possibility, every choice, every action, every perspective, every variation.”

So, under MRT, a person “chooses” because the “choice” exists (or has to exist). In fact a person does not make the choice, he just the experiencer of the choice. Sure, a person may have the illusion that he is making a choice, but, in fact, the choice is “made” because without it not every possible choice exist.
“Choice A” is made, because some universal necessity requires its existence —— because every choice has to exist. Because all the others choices exist, this choice has to exist also. And that’s why the choice is made. IOWs choices exists not because a person freely makes a choice.
Conclusion: under MRT there is no personal freedom.

186. 186
kairosfocus says:

WJM, again you have mislabelled what is self evident, consciousness including awareness of experiences, memory, mental focus, intent etc, for the sum total of experience. The key point in my expression C:(I UNION We) is that our consciousness is unified and embraces the self in the world thus also the world. In this context, once one uses skeptical fallacies to radically doubt or dismiss the awareness C:(), or any major part, the self I or the world We, there are no firewalls, one is undermining the conscious mindedness required to reason regarding the self or the world we inhabit. This is self-referentially absurd. Better, is to recognise that even as error exists is undeniably true, we may err in detail but on the whole our core consciousness is veridical. That is, we are minded, embodied creatures aware of our selves and via that embodiment, we participate in a wider world, including experiences, memory, rational reflection etc. Of course, there is, e.g. a micro level reality, where macro states of bodies we interact with, find a substructure; that does not invalidate our macro experience such as of solidity. Entities that (roughly) have defined conserved shapes and volumes. Similarly, in the dark, we see the world in a greenish-grey monochrome, experiencing luminance using visual senses and [with sound colour vision] we experience colours when there is higher illumination. Likewise, the reduction of rational, responsible freedom to computation on a neural network substrate undermines rationality, that too is an error. From the Reidian common sense being outlined, we may confidently engage the world and take it seriously rather than a shadowy chaos of doubts or delusions. KF

187. 187
William J Murray says:

Origens @185;

Infinite (all) choices exist; I don’t make that particular choice because that particular choice already exists, because every other possible choice at that location also already exists. I have all sorts of choices (that already exist at any location) that I can experience.

188. 188
William J Murray says:

KF @186:
Nothing you have said about MRT has ever been relevant to it. I’ve attempted to inform you and correct you. I’ve pointed out that you’ve made no attempt to understand it at all, but felt entirely qualified and justified to criticize it. You’re making one straw man complaint after another. Your portrayal of MRT in your arguments is an idiosyncratic ERT characterization of it, nothing more. You’re not addressing the actual MRT.

189. 189
William J Murray says:

BTW, KF, the existence of a world external of mind is not and can never be a “self-evident” truth. No matter how you word your ERT worldview, you cannot escape the self-evident truth that no matter where the information for our experiences comes from, all experiences occur in mind. Where that information comes from can only ever be a belief or theory.

190. 190
kairosfocus says:

WJM, of course I never said that the external physical world independent of our minds is self-evident. It is common sense to accept the general testimony of our senses, it is patent that we are consciously aware of ourselves as embodied creatures in a wider world, so we summarise C:(I UNION We). It is then a logical step or two to recognise that to doubt any of the three aspects is to undermine the conscious rational mind we must rely on and to reject grand doubt or grand delusion as absurd. That is so, but it is not instantly obvious so it is not self-evident. And as to oh you haven’t been relevant, I think that I have been in fact quite relevant, including just now. There simply is no more good reason to hyperskeptically doubt the general testimony of our senses than that of our self-awareness or consciousness. The Reidian common sense approach makes excellent sense. KF

191. 191
William J Murray says:

The only “firewall” we can possibly have against delusion is the capacity to internally discern between categories of mental experience, because all experience is necessarily mental in nature. You can imagine that some “hardware” firewall exists external of mind, but that “hardware firewall” is forever unavailable to us to examine for fidelity, as is the domain it is supposed to be processing into mentally-accessible information. The only “fidelity” we can actually examine is the fidelity of comparative mental experiences, (1) between experiencers, and (2) to the characteristics of that category of experiences.

ERT requires MRT or else it cannot even get off the ground. ERT requires both mental categorical and mental interpersonal fidelity and sound mental firewalls between categories of mental experience or else it has no significant foundation to even make claims about any supposed domain exterior to mind.

IOW, any sound ERT must necessarily be a subset of a sound MRT or else it cannot survive or be taken seriously (this is why materialism fails and is delusional.) If we cannot be confident in our ability to correctly discern between categories of mental experience, ALL is lost regardless of the theory.

One’s correct understanding can never ultimately depend on an “external of mind” hardware/firewall set because there is literally, even in principle, no way to test the accuracy or fidelity of such a system. We cannot even access it; all we would have available to us is the processed, interpreted mental information it produces as mental experience. All we can possibly be testing is a category of mental information/experiences/phenomena by using other categories of mental experiences. Unless that is a sound internal process with high fidelity information processing and firewalls, all is lost.

When you take the necessary internal firewalls, safeguards and capacity to directly access the real world (of information) and the processing protocols and shove them out into an inaccessible, imagined world external of mind, you have eliminated your capacity to protect against delusion because you have committed that discernment capacity to something entirely inaccessible, unverifiable and beyond our capacity to actually check for fidelity.

Our only possible avenue of making statements about reality is if reality is mental in nature, period.

I say all that to come to this: Yes, I agree; MRT reveals that ERT is prone to delusion – materialism, for example. I doubt you can see this, but that is exactly the nature of your argument against MRT; that adopting it renders the ERT perspective more prone to delusion (“you can’t trust your senses or gauge errors, and it breaks down rationality.”)

That’s actually the case you’re making, even if you don’t realize it. You’re saying what effect MRT wiill have on the ERT perspective. And that’s why your argument and objections are not actually about MRT theory; they’re about the effect it would have on your ERT.

But, MRT theory doesn’t make ERT more prone to error, delusion and the breakdown of rational thought; it reveals those problems because ERT transposes what are necessarily mental qualities and safeguards into an imagined, inaccessible external world.

Every bit of your argument, every last word, every claim, every observation, every bit of reasoning … requires MRT. It begins and ends with the assumption of MRT and our internal capacity to successfully do the things you keep insisting require some hypothesized commodities external of mind to do.

When you argue that MRT leads to delusion, you are sawing off the branch upon which you must sit in order to make your argument. There is no place else to sit except mental reality; if one cannot have confidence in their capacity to discern one set of mental experiences from another, it cannot matter if an external world exists or not.

192. 192
William J Murray says:

So, KF, when you say MRT renders the common physical world our senses reveal to us “a grand delusion,” what you’re really saying is that’s the effect it would have under the ERT perspective. That is why it is a straw man objection. It is not a “grand delusion” or an “illusion” or a “misrepresentation” or an “error” under MRT because MRT doesn’t assume such an external world exists in the first place to compare it against. Therefore, that it is a mutually experiential, verifiable and testable set of physical experiences is not a “delusion;” that word only has value in comparison to the ERT perspective. That is what that category of experience IS under MRT. It never was an actual world external of mind, thus understanding it as such cannot make it a “delusion.”

You only consider it “prone to delusion” because you’re thinking about what it would mean under your ERT. That is not a sound criticism of MRT, it’s just your inability to step outside of ERT for a minute to consider it from a different perspective.

193. 193
William J Murray says:

Now let’s examine the claim that MRT is “self-referentially absurd.” If that is true, all is lost, because mind is the only thing we have to work with regardless of any theory. You can’t save yourself from “self-referential absurdity” by proposing a domain or processes external of mind, because all you have of that proposed domain is what occurs in mind. All thought about it occurs in mind. All experimentation of it and all theories about it occur in mind.

If MRT is self-referentially absurd because it is monistic and mind is all there is, then all is inescapably lost, because that is all we have.

194. 194
William J Murray says:

To continue:

You can make whatever claims you want about “reality.” You can propose any sort of additional domain external of mind you desire. You can completely believe such domains exist. But the inescapable, self-evident fact of our existence is: all we actually have is mind.

It is foolish, IMO, to talk about “reality” in any other terms. For all practical intents and purposes, reality is mental in nature, and the only possible sound and rational theory about reality is some form of mental reality. We just don’t have any possible access to any aspect of “reality” that hypothetically exists independent or outside of mind (to be clear, I’m not talking about what we call an individual mind. My MRT is not solipsistic.)

195. 195
jerry says:

Can we stop this nonsense about MRT No one believes it. And the main person bringing it up does not believe it either as he constantly refers to an external world as the basis for reality.

It’s a silly game being played. The more interesting thing is that people try to answer this nonsense like it was real.

196. 196
kairosfocus says:

WJM,

Kindly note just what is antecedent to this in what I actually argue:

The key point in my expression C:(I UNION We) is that our consciousness is unified and embraces the self in the world thus also the world. In this context, once one uses skeptical fallacies to radically doubt or dismiss the awareness C:(), or any major part, the self I or the world We, there are no firewalls, one is undermining the conscious mindedness required to reason regarding the self or the world we inhabit. This is self-referentially absurd. Better, is to recognise that even as error exists is undeniably true, we may err in detail but on the whole our core consciousness is veridical. That is, we are minded, embodied creatures aware of our selves and via that embodiment, we participate in a wider world, including experiences, memory, rational reflection etc.

KF

197. 197
William J Murray says:

KF, answered and rejected in my prior comments above.

If you think I’ve misunderstood your argument, repeating your exact same argument verbatim as if it’s going to have a different outcome/response might be an indication you’re delusional.

198. 198
kairosfocus says:

WJM, it is clear that there was reason to point out what I actually stated, for record. KF

199. 199
William J Murray says:

KF,

WJM, it is clear that there was reason to point out what I actually stated, for record. KF

KF: you asked ME to NOTE what you said in your argument against MRT. You weren’t posting it “for the record.” Those three or four comments I wrote were in response to that very thing. If you think my responses to that argument misunderstands your argument, reposting the same thing verbatim and asking me to “note it” accomplishes what?

So, let me again do your work for you. You said (several times:)

The key point in my expression C:(I UNION We) is that our consciousness is unified and embraces the self in the world thus also the world. In this context, once one uses skeptical fallacies to radically doubt or dismiss the awareness C:(), or any major part, the self I or the world We, there are no firewalls, one is undermining the conscious mindedness required to reason regarding the self or the world we inhabit. This is self-referentially absurd. Better, is to recognise that even as error exists is undeniably true, we may err in detail but on the whole our core consciousness is veridical. That is, we are minded, embodied creatures aware of our selves and via that embodiment, we participate in a wider world, including experiences, memory, rational reflection etc.

Tell me specifically how MRT does (or fails to do) any of the things you are apparently saying it does in the above comment. Tell me which necessary things MRT fails to provide. I mean, line up what parts of MRT fail to do the job you consider necessary and how it fails to do its job in terms of avoiding grand delusion or self-referential absurdity. Please be specific.

200. 200
William J Murray says:

Let me make it even easier for you, KF:

“The key point in my expression C:(I UNION We) is that our consciousness is unified and embraces the self in the world thus also the world. [MRT does this; do you think it does not?]In this context, once one uses skeptical fallacies to radically doubt or dismiss the awareness C:(), or any major part, the self I or the world We, there are no firewalls, [Is MRT using skeptical fallacies? Which ones? How? Where?]one is undermining the conscious mindedness required to reason regarding the self or the world we inhabit. This is self-referentially absurd. Better, is to recognise that even as error exists is undeniably true, we may err in detail but on the whole our core consciousness is veridical. [Does MRT claim that consciousness is not verdical? How? Where?]That is, we are minded, embodied creatures aware of our selves and via that embodiment, we participate in a wider world, including experiences, memory, rational reflection etc.[Does MRT deny this? How? Where?]

201. 201
202. 202
William J Murray says:

KF,
That link goes to what is just a longer version of your repeated comment here. It does not specifically point out where MRT fails to provide what is necessary. Please look over #200 here where I made it easy for you by pointing out where I would like you to state specifically how MRT fails. Just pick one that is the easiest and tell me specifically how MRT specifically fails. Giving me a general principle and saying the MRT fails it, is not addressing how MRT specifically fails it.

203. 203
kairosfocus says:

WJM, I will further respond to you later, DV. I have headlined some thoughts that for cause I believe will help us to move forward as a civilisation beyond being bedevilled by hyperskepticism thence subjectivism, relativism, emotivism and deeply polarised politicisation that point to breakdown and severe loss of liberty. These are not mere academic points of the ilk of what is the difference between location and extension aka how many angels can dance on the head or tip of a pin. KF

204. 204
William J Murray says:

I’ll make it easier for you, KF, by telling you how to do it.

(1) State your understanding of one relevant MRT claim
(2) State which specific aspect of your “formula” of what is necessary for a rational, non-self-referentially absurd, non-delusional worldview it violates.
(3) Explain how that specific claim of MRT violates that necessary element.

205. 205
Silver Asiatic says:

WJM

No matter how you word your ERT worldview, you cannot escape the self-evident truth that no matter where the information for our experiences comes from, all experiences occur in mind.

I haven’t followed this, but just from my own philosophical perspective – I think that view is not reasonable.
I think KF has shown elsewhere in one of his diagrams, that in order to have any kind of rational thought, there must be at least two things. Rationality is the comparison of things. If everything only occurred in our mind, then we would only have one thing – thus, rationality would be impossible. We would have only ourself, talking with ourself.
Our self-evident experience is that there is something “out there” – something external.
That is why we communicate our thoughts to others.
That is why we take time to receive thoughts from others.
That is the baseline. To disagree with that is to render everything outside of the mind as non-real or illusory.
But again, this is the kind of materialistic (not assigning that to your view but comparing) monism and is irrational.
A mind cannot know anything if it only has itself. We know what “external to mind” means because that is how we learn and that is how we experience.
We know what an illusion is because we know how that is different from what is real.
We know what the truth is in comparison to the false.
We know what “occur in mind” means because we know what “outside of mind means”, and we know that because we experience it. Thus, in order to be rational, we must accept that the mind points to something outside of itself.
We could object to this, but that destroys the reasoning-process. So, we want to be rational and thus accept that there is a world “outside of the mind” from which we receive thoughts of other people and we learn by experiences and the objects around us.
Trying to cogitate without any object to think about is impossible.

206. 206
Silver Asiatic says:

As for “experiences only occur in our mind”, it is our mind that tells us that.
That view assigns “mind” to every aspect of human life, but we do not know that necessarily. A human person is body, mind, soul, emotions, memory, imagination. Can we experience something mindlessly – as in a bodily experience? There’s no way to prove that our mind is active in every aspect of life experience.

207. 207
William J Murray says:

SA said:

If everything only occurred in our mind, then we would only have one thing – thus, rationality would be impossible. We would have only ourself, talking with oourself.

You don’t know enough about MRT to properly assess it or make objections, as evidenced by your objection here. When I refer to mind, I’m not referring to “my mind” or “your mind” or any individual mind; I’m referring to universal mind. Under MRT, there are other individuals, other selfs with free will that have localized individuality and autonomy. There are also different categories of mental phenomena with different characteristics that can easily be discerned from each other.

If you shut what we call the mind off (not the body or brain; the loci of observational awareness, some might call it the soul or spirit; even in a dream, our experiences still occur there) then we have no experiences. Therefore, “all experience occurs in the mind” regardless of where that information comes from. We don’t even theoretically, under ERT (external of mind reality theory,) experience the “external of mind world” at our sensory ends – fingertips, eyes, ears – because that information is supposedly being gathered and sent to our brain/mind, which then processes it into a high-fidelity mental, experiential simulation of the external world.

I’d be happy to explain further if you’re interested. MRT just disposes of what is an entirely unnecessary domain for this experience to occur; a physical reality external of mind (universal mind).

208. 208
William J Murray says:

SA said:

There’s no way to prove that our mind is active in every aspect of life experience.

If mind (as defined in my previous comment as observational awareness) isn’t active, there is no experience. MRT accounts for other states of consciousness as well, including the subconscious and what we call the unconscious (unconscious still being a state of consciousness.)

209. 209
kairosfocus says:

WJM,

I first note that I long since took time to address one of your main presentations, point by point, see here.

Let me clip from above and further comment briefly, for record:

191: >>The only “firewall” we can possibly have against delusion is the capacity to internally discern between categories of mental experience,>>

1: I of course remarked that there is no firewall between the contents of our conscious experience of being aware of self, being aware of self as embodied and being aware of embodied self as in a physical world that extends far beyond our own bodies.

2: My further point was general and is general, that any system of thought that puts any or all of these major awarenesses in general doubt or delusional, therefore undermines the credibility of conscious awareness as well as its contents.

3: Such would include awareness of reasoning and seeming results of reasoning. Which becomes fatally self-referential.

4: Where, we must make a Reidian distinction between limitations and errors in detail, which can be corrected through the wider system and reduction to discredit on the whole, which undermines even rational thought so correction itself falls under suspicion.

5: Dismissal or skeptical doubt on the general reliability of our conscious awareness and what it presents is self-defeating.

>>because all experience is necessarily mental in nature.>>

6: Which, is to be distinguished from being solely mental in nature.

7: Conscious experience and awareness embrace our inner lives, our embodiment and our presence and participation in the world, C: (I UNION We). So, given the problem of self-defeat of rationality once grand doubt or delusion are entertained, it is common good sense to take the three-fold awareness as on the whole veridical albeit prone to limitations and errors in detail.

>>You can imagine that some “hardware” firewall exists external of mind,>>

8: I asserted the opposite, that there is no firewall in our awareness C:(I UNION We) so it is unwise to generally doubt any major aspect of the whole.

>> but that “hardware firewall” is forever unavailable to us to examine for fidelity,>>

9: ECF, the assessment is, once we have any main component of C:(I UNION We) in doubt or dismissed as generally delusional, that spreads to the whole as there is no partition or firewall to prevent that.

10: If I doubt consciousness as say Crick and Rosenberg have, that is fatal. If I doubt the self and its rationality (e.g. am I a man dreaming he is a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he is a man, to quote Carradine’s character in Kung Fu from my childhood) that is fatal. If I doubt the external world or ability to significantly veridically access it — Kantian ugly gulch thinking — that too is fatal.

11: From your reaction, it seems fair to infer that the scheme you have advanced doubts accessibility and/or veridicality of We as presented to us through C:, so also embodiment.

>> as is the domain it is supposed to be processing into mentally-accessible information.>>

12: This seems to support my inference at 11.

>> The only “fidelity” we can actually examine is the fidelity of comparative mental experiences, (1) between experiencers, and (2) to the characteristics of that category of experiences. >>

13: At one level, obviously consciousness is a mental process, however, that process presents a sense of embodied self active in a physical world that we sense in multiple ways. It is a wholly other step, then, to suggest or invite that conscious awareness is solely mental, i.e. to open up radical doubt regarding embodiment and/or participation in a wider physical world.

14: That radical doubt opens up the grand delusion issue and becomes fatally self-referential. We are back at F H Bradley’s concern on appearance vs reality, which can be extended to awareness of the conscious self C:, awareness that the conscious self presents itself as embodied, awareness that the conscious embodied self participates in a similarly physical world with various other bodies in a temporal-causal, spatial domain.

15: Common sense, instead, is to accept the general validity of such awarenes, and of its contents subject to limitations and errors in detail.

>>ERT requires MRT or else it cannot even get off the ground.>>

16: That consciousness is mental is not in serious doubt, that conscious awareness and its contents are in grand radical doubt or delusion on lines of Plato’s cave of shadow shows is.

>>ERT requires>>

17: Your chosen contrast, the “theory” that there is an external reality, by its very phrasing, supports the inference that you are putting up a monism of mind as sole substance of reality, implying or inviting at minimum the onward inference that seeming embodiment and participation in a wider physical world are not veridical.

>>requires both mental categorical and mental interpersonal fidelity and sound mental firewalls between categories of mental experience>>

18: No one seriously disputes that abstracta can hold distinct identity.

19: If embodiment is in doubt, other seemingly mentally functional bodies as part of the wider world would be in doubt. The grand doubt/delusion cascade proceeds apace in an avalanche.

>>or else it has no significant foundation to even make claims about any supposed domain exterior to mind.>>

20: No one disputes that mindedness makes distinctions.

21: Your phrase as highlighted — especially “supposed” — strongly supports that your doubt is focussed on We therefore on bodily embodiment of the self. If one’s awareness of a wider world and of one’s embodiment therein are in radical doubt, then we have doubts on the right function of conscious self awareness, a general breakdown.

22: The common sense alternative is clear, accept limitations and potential for error, reject grand radical doubt or delusion.

KF

210. 210
William J Murray says:

No, KF, I”m not going to wade through you copy-paste regurgitations. This is what I asked for:

(1) State your understanding of one relevant MRT claim
(2) State which specific aspect of your “formula” of what is necessary for a rational, non-self-referentially absurd, non-delusional worldview it violates.
(3) Explain how that specific claim of MRT violates that necessary element.

Until you do this, I’ll assume you’re not being serious here. Here’s an example:

1. MRT denies that we are embodied.
2. A rational worldview requires that we accept that we accept this embodiment as real.
3. Therefore, MRT cannot be a rational worldview.

If the above is correct, let me know. Or, use your own.

211. 211
William J Murray says:

I’m going to point out a very blatant flaw in what you said here:

1: I of course remarked that there is no firewall between the contents of our conscious experience of being aware of self, being aware of self as embodied and being aware of embodied self as in a physical world that extends far beyond our own bodies.

If there was no firewall of some sort between those three things, you wouldn’t be able to identify them as distinct and separate things.

212. 212
kairosfocus says:

WJM, your opening sentence just now reflects refusal to engage specific responses to your actual quoted claims, including that you clearly suggest that you doubt the veridicality of our sense of being embodied participants in a wider physical world. But that is enough record to show that there is reason to hold that your system does entail radical doubt and/or grand delusion, leading to the concerns on self referentiality as long since noted. Actually, denoting external reality as a theory rather than a general fact of experience was already a sign of that. And, obviously it has been subtler than direct denial all along, the approach has been by way of doubts and suggested ugly gulches. External reality becomes a “theory” and in 191, you now suggest that we are discussing “any supposed domain exterior to mind.” That indicates that the door is opened to monism of mind as sole substance of reality, thence the self referentiality regarding veridicality of conscious awareness as noted. Once that general credibility is undermined, the avalanche sweeps all in its path, including awareness of supposed rational thought. KF

213. 213
kairosfocus says:

WJM, notice, I have not denied distinct identity but have pointed out that once corrosive doubt is brought in on any major facet of conscious awareness, it extends to conscious awareness so becomes self-referential across the board including on our supposed awareness of reasoning. Hence, why from 8 above I highlighted Reidian common sense. KF

214. 214
William J Murray says:

KF,
I’ll take that as your admission that you refuse to identify one specific claim of MRT as problematic, and specifically state what part of your “rational worldview” template it conflicts with and how.

215. 215
William J Murray says:

Since KF seems unwilling to specify claims of MRT his “rational worldview” template holds as problematic, I just shoot some that may or not be approximations of what may be seen as problems under that template.

1. MRT denies that there are independent, autonomous “selves.”
No, it does not.

2. MRT denies that those selves are physically embodied
No, it does not.

3. MRT denies that a physical world extends beyond the embodied self.
No, it does not.

4. MRT denies one can obtain verdical knowledge about their embodiment and/or the extended physical world.
No, it does not.

MRT doesn’t deny any of those things. What MRT does is conceptually re-organize how and where those things occur. This is no more “dangerous” to rationality than the transition from a Ptolemaic cosmology to the Copernican, or from Newtonian physics to General Relativity to quantum. All of the necessary qualities and principles are still intact, just conceptually reorganized in terms of how and where they occur/exist.

216. 216
kairosfocus says:

WJM, But I did, using your own words; reducing external reality to “theory” is longstanding and it is further underscored by your comment in 191 on “any supposed domain exterior to mind.”* That is enough for my concerns to be highly relevant. KF

*PS: Even this phrase is further loaded, any number of theists will accept that in him we live, move and have our being, i.e. God is omnipresent in reality and upholds it from moment to moment by his rationally manifest power. They also will accept that we are embodied in a world that is independent of our minds and act in that world as rational, responsible creatures. That is, such accept the general veridicality of our common physical world.

217. 217
William J Murray says:

KF,
You don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re conflating “mind” with “individual mind.”
So what if everything exists in universal mind? There is no more concern with a loss of rational distinction between self and other than accepting that our physical body is integrated in and part of the physical world. I have no trouble distinguishing my physical body from the rest of the physical world. Do you?

218. 218
William J Murray says:

Your difficulty, KF, is due to your vague concept of “mind.” MRT has a very detailed, sophisticated and specified organization and classification system of mind with distinct parts, categories, and processes. You’re referring to it as if it’s some homogenous bag of non-distinct gas.

That’s why I advised you to try and understand more about the theory before you try to raise objections to it. But, you do you.

219. 219
kairosfocus says:

WJM, the concern remains; there seems to be a case of a little error at the beginning. Enough has been noted for record. KF

220. 220
William J Murray says:

Let’s talk about “verdical” knowledge, KF.

Do you have trouble acquiring verdical knowledge about entirely mental phenomena, such as knowing the difference between a memory and imaginative fantasy? How about mental equations you conduct in your mind; do you doubt you are obtaining verdical knowledge about the correct answer to that equation? How about when you are working out a logic problem. Do you have trouble discerning the correct answer from incorrect answers? Do you get your internal sense of self mixed up with the memory of other people, or people you imagine?

Verdical knowledge about entirely mental experiences can be acquired using the mental facilities we recognize as tools of acquiring knowledge and applying them to easily distinguished categories of mental experience and phenomena. We couldn’t function as rational beings otherwise, regardless of the other qualities of the nature of our existence, regardless of whether or not a world external of mind exists.

Your claim of loss of the capacity to acquire verdical knowledge of the physical world unless that world exists external of mind is bogus.

221. 221
William J Murray says:

WJM, the concern remains; there seems to be a case of a little error at the beginning. Enough has been noted for record.

And that’s the problem, apparently. You’re more interested in writing stuff “for the record” instead of making good faith attempts to engage and understand in a manner that might clear things up for the principles involved in the discussion.

222. 222
William J Murray says:

More on verdical knowledge:

It is literally impossible to gain verdical knowledge about the existential state of something proposed to exist outside of mind. The only thing we can possibly obtain verdical knowledge about are mental states (mental experiences, mental phenomena) because that is the only kind of thing we have any direct access to.

This is why many of the big quantum physicists have said that consciousness – the observer, or the experiencer – is a necessary, fundamental aspect of any comprehensive theory of physics, because the state-qualities of the fundamental qualities of the physical world are observer-dependent. IOW, it is our experience of those states that we are measuring, not the “thing” in and of itself.

It is a tortured model that tries to keep separate the physical world and our physical-world experience. Quantum physics has shown that “the physical world” is our physical world experience; it has shown that a supposed “physical world” does not, and cannot, cause our physical experience because there is no “local reality” there “before” the experience that could cause it. There is only abstract information in the form of probability potential.

Information and probability potentials can only exist in mind. They have found that there is no material substrate there for that information to be instantiated upon. There is no “energy” there because “energy” is a model of behaviors and/or potential behaviors. Models do not cause the behaviors they model. It’s all abstract information being processed by mind into experience, and we are measuring the qualities of that experience.

I don’t know how this can be more clearly evidenced and supported than it already has been via quantum experimentation. We exist entirely within universal mind (or the mind of God,) this physical world experience running according to abstract rules and laws that separate and govern our experiences and provide for our capacity to exist and operate as individual, rational entities in a discoverable, knowledge-available set of mutually consistent experiences.

There’s no logical reason to keep insisting there exists a world beyond that, especially in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

223. 223
Silver Asiatic says:

KF

God is omnipresent in reality and upholds it from moment to moment by his rationally manifest power. They also will accept that we are embodied in a world that is independent of our minds and act in that world as rational, responsible creatures. That is, such accept the general veridicality of our common physical world.

That’s the standard view from ancient Christian theology. As such, it requires an understanding of the nature of God and His attributes. That God created a physical world, and at the same time, holds, maintains, preserves, ‘energizes’ that world continually (from His Being, not just His mind) is not inconsistent with the idea that “everything exists in mind”, but it’s a more comprehensive view since it speaks directly of God as “the mind” from which everything comes.

224. 224
Silver Asiatic says:

WJM

We exist entirely within universal mind (or the mind of God,)

Those are two, potentially, very different ideas. If you believe the one (the mind of God), that view requires a lot of knowledge about God. In the classical view, God is a perfect union of being, knowledge (intellect) and will. The physical universe is a created world existing in God.
The other view, that there’s a “universal mind” out there, leaves a lot of questions unanswered (why is this mind not God?, how is it different? where did it come from? )

225. 225
William J Murray says:

SA said:

Those are two, potentially, very different ideas.

They actually represent an enormous number of very different ideas. My concept of universal mind is one of them.

At some point, maybe we can move beyond stating the obvious.

226. 226
Karen McMannus says:

Whatever the Root Reality is, it’s humorous to see people talking about “it” as if they know anything worth saying. Shucks, people can’t even describe in words the difference between blue and red. And yet think they have something worthwhile to say about Ultimate Reality. 😀

227. 227
kairosfocus says:

KM, actually, R & B can be readily described in words [with help of numbers tied to frequencies and energy levels. Blues are spectral colours corresponding to ~ 450 – 485 nm, or 2.64 – 2.75 eV. Reds, similarly, to 625 – 740 nm and 1.65 – 2.00 eV. So, we can conceptually, quantitatively describe red vs blue. Building thereon, we can work out that we are contingent, minded creatures in a contingent world that appears to have had a beginning ~ 14 BYA, pointing onward to causal roots. Once we recognise the span of hyperreals, R* we can readily see that stepwise, finite stage causal temporal succession cannot complete a transfinite span across the past to now. That points to a finitely remote, causally adequate world root. Such, can then be assessed on logic of being, as necessary being [as, transfinite succession fails and were there ever utter non-being such would forever obtain i.e. there would be no world] . Necessary being is eternal and part of the framework for any world to be. our world shows strong fine tuning pointing to intelligent design towards life. That points to mind at the root. Life exhibits coded algorithmic information, so pointing to language using purposeful intelligence, i.e. agency. Our particular life is morally governed [even in arguments that object] pointing to a requirement that the root be able to sustain the terrible weight of ought. That is best explained on inherent goodness and utter wisdom. So, we see in ontological-metaphysical outline, a necessary being world root, with language-using, purposeful intelligent agency, with inherent goodness and utter wisdom as source and sustainer of our cosmos and any other possible or actual contingent world. I suggest that these are well worth the saying, hard-won and bought at high cost of sustained intense world class reasoning across 3000+ years of the life of the mind in civilisation. KF

228. 228
kairosfocus says:

SA, that everything derives being from and is sustained by God as eternal root with utter wisdom does not lead to the idea that the world we find ourselves embodied and participating in is dubious, or even delusional. It does not support the view that our minds, senses and general frame of knowledge fundamentally mislead us in our understanding of ourselves and our world. Once that sort of notion is admitted, it corrodes the basic credibility of reason, ability to perceive accurately and to know credibly. Down that road lies utter incoherent absurdity. And that one may not perceive or denies that consequence makes not 2c worth of difference to the result. As a general rule, any scheme of thought that creates radical general doubt or — and this is inclusive — outright declared grand delusion affecting any major aspect of our conscious self-awarenes or awareness of embodiment or awareness of a world in which we live and act as embodied creatures can be considered utterly absurd and anti-rational then set aside. Where, yes, this specifically includes maya, any Plato’s cave world or a matrix type world or last-week-thursdayism etc. Their name, for cause, is Legion. Kindly, apply the would you buy a used car from someone who argues like that common good sense principle. KF

229. 229
William J Murray says:

KM @226:
And yet, here you are, talking about “root reality” as if you know enough about it to dismiss what other people say about it as being “humorous.”

230. 230
Silver Asiatic says:

WJM

They actually represent an enormous number of very different ideas.

You seem to be taking a contentious approach as if there was one, settled idea on this. Given the “enormous” number of different (conflicting) ideas can we question the level of absolute certainty you seem to be giving to the concept? I wouldn’t call holding one of an enormous number of conflicting ideas something that should be understood as “obvious”. That is, perhaps your task will be to have to repeat again and again, your own idiosyncratic notions for people who don’t know what you believe or why. It’s different for a person, for example, who says they hold classical Christian theism. Yes, in that case, most of it is “the obvious”. But if it’s a question of one’s own personalized view, I think some patience is required when explaining or convincing people in what exactly that is, and why one should accept it as you do (given an enormous number of people who believe something like you hold conflicting views). True?

231. 231
Silver Asiatic says:

KF

SA, that everything derives being from and is sustained by God as eternal root with utter wisdom does not lead to the idea that the world we find ourselves embodied and participating in is dubious, or even delusional. It does not support the view that our minds, senses and general frame of knowledge fundamentally mislead us in our understanding of ourselves and our world.

Yes, exactly.
My view is that once we speak of God as a part of our theory – or actually, even when we omit God from a theory that requires a reference to Him – then we’re talking about theology, and therefore religion has an essential role to play.
Because when we have God involved (and I’ve noted references to “the mind of God”) then we’re talking about the attributes of God, the purposes of God, the creative power (or not) of God, and the overall nature of God.
If we’re not talking about God, but some kind of “mind” – this is different.
There is pantheism or deism that are possibilities.
But in all of these cases, we have to look at religion and the religious culture of humanity. Some analysis of revealed teachings through prophets is a necessary part of this.
So, an analysis of God (even speaking of “the mind of God”) is not solely (or even) a question of science.

Once that sort of notion is admitted, it corrodes the basic credibility of reason, ability to perceive accurately and to know credibly. Down that road lies utter incoherent absurdity.

Right, because to hold that there is “a mind” (among many) that exists independently and from which all reality emerges, this notion competes with the idea of God, and if held in opposition to God, will lead to absurdity. The idea that God creates and “holds all in existence” is the foundation for rational thought, because “the mind of God” is that of reason itself and the perfection of all intellectual virtues. We know that only slightly from philosophy but more clearly from Christian theology.

As a general rule, any scheme of thought that creates radical general doubt or — and this is inclusive — outright declared grand delusion affecting any major aspect of our conscious self-awarenes or awareness of embodiment or awareness of a world in which we live and act as embodied creatures can be considered utterly absurd and anti-rational then set aside.

That’s a significant point. One should not be ready to discard the received wisdom and knowledge of human heritage by universalizing the results of scientific experiments (the extension of which remains unknown). And as you say, that which contributes doubt only attacks reason and rationality itself — thus unraveling science and the possibility of true knowledge.

Where, yes, this specifically includes maya, any Plato’s cave world or a matrix type world or last-week-thursdayism etc. Their name, for cause, is Legion. Kindly, apply the would you buy a used car from someone who argues like that common good sense principle.

The common sense principle would say (I think) that any kind of monism is self-refuting since reason requires comparison and contrast. With a monistic system (all is mind) there can be nothing to compare with. The second common sense view is that any worldview that must hold that the majority (if not virtually all) of human experience, knowledge and common sense itself is “an illusion” is a problem. It’s common sense to know the difference between what is real and what is a human thought or imagination. To insist that both are the same really does lead to insanity and absurdity.

232. 232
kairosfocus says:

SA, we are looking in the context of serious candidate worldview options. Matters of evidence obtain and certain things are off the table. I emphasised the main matters in a western context, where pantheism and/or panentheism are not primary. However, monisms struggle with the one and the many and that comes out on grounding the good in distinction to evil. Here, deism is a variant form of theism. The inherently good, utterly wise eternal [as, necessary being] source and sustainer of a contingent world with a widely acknowledged start time, is credibly a personal agent, one quite close to the God recognised by the monotheistic traditions. This becomes particularly clear if one goes on to discuss a maximally great being. However, by and large worldviews analysis is not a theological exercise though it may point to and support such. KF