this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
17 points (100.0% liked)
askchapo
22763 readers
114 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try [email protected] if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh, Einstein's theory is beautiful. It's elegant, and there's a lot of truth to it. It accurately predicts our future perceptions within relativistic situations, far better than Newton's theory. However, that's all it is - perception. Einstein accurately described the interface of our minds and created a model we can use to better use that interface. But understanding an interface is not the same as understanding the truth beneath the interface. That's probably why Einstein's theory can't account for quantum science.
What? It's not just perception, it's repeatable measurements. Anyone on earth, even a machine, can run the same experiments (or for astrophysics, observe the same phenomenon) and get the same numbers.
I suppose technically it's just a model, but if it answers all of our questions it seems to be correct.
No, that's because that's a different problem entirely. Though all models of quantum physics assume that time is a dimension of space as well.
A repeatable perception of measurements. To think that perceiving something enough times in a row makes it true is a fallacy. Every time I load this here silver disk into my DVD player, I perceive Luke Skywalker lifting a rock with his mind. That doesn't make my perception true, no matter how repeatable it is.
You mean you can perceive a machine running the same experiments and you will perceive the machine agreeing with your perceptions. That's hardly an unbiased experiment.
No you don't. You perceive a person standing next to a rock that is lifting upwards. More accurately you perceived photons hitting your sensory neurons that made a pattern that your brain interpreted as a person standing and a rock floating. A narrative told you it was Skywalker picking up a rock with his mind. If the narrative was that the rock was angry and was going to attack Luke, you would interpret that instead.
A repeatable observation does not change no matter the narrative that is assigned to it. I see no other possible explanation for that that besides the observation being the truth, or close enough that any distinction is inconsequential.
So if I were able to present a narrative which changes my observations of the world's existence, then you would be wrong to say the world's existence is true?
If you presented a narrative such that the measurement of a phenomenon changed, that would call certain things into doubt. I want to be clear, in the domain of scientific inquiry we are discussing an observation as a measurement of some kind. It can be quantified as a number. The narrative should be effective on anyone taking the observation.
As for the world's existence, I can very clearly touch things outside of myself, I have nerves that are designed to send sense information to my brain. I can clearly measure the location of my desk in my room and my distance from it using a tape measure. There is no narrative that would, given a tape measure, cause anyone to observe a different distance between me and my desk.
While some have remarked on the unreasonable efficacy of mathematics at representing the natural world, it is not perfect. For example, numbers are hardly useful in the field of psychiatry. Given that we are entering into an investigation pertaining strongly to the mind, I believe we should adopt at least some practices from psychiatry, including the practice of taking qualitative measurements.
Anyone who is capable of actually entertaining the narrative, you mean. No scientific proof will ever convince a flat earther that the horizon is curved, because they are incapable of entertaining the competing narrative. Likewise, my experiment ought to work on anyone, as long as they are capable of taking my narrative seriously. If they're unwilling to keep an open mind, of course they'll keep perceiving the same thing, just like the flat earther.
No we aren't. You asked about a narrative that changed the observation of the world outside of the mind. Measurement is all that matters in this realm of epistemology.
I suppose, yes, the observer does have to accept the narrative. That being said, a flat earther running an experiment to test if the world is flat does make the same observations as someone who believes the world is round, they just either contort their worldview to match or reject the observation entirely. They don't run an experiment and get different results. Such as in this clip in which a flat earther observes the exact same phenomenon as everyone else. He may choose to reject it, but the observation is the same.
It wouldn't be relevant if we couldn't influence it, but we can influence it.
https://hexbear.net/comment/3894130
Some, yes. But not one that carries the cultural baggage with which you associate the term "existence". It does not imply that there exists matter, or nonconscious entities.
If we are to propose that reality exists, then we must have some consistent theory of reality that does not invalidate itself. Hoffman proves that mainstream realism invalidates itself. In the absence of a coherent model, the null hypothesis of solipsism is supported by Occam's razor. You seem to think realism is the null hypothesis, which is as strange as it is to say that a teapot orbiting mars is the null hypothesis.
The skyscrapers, dams, and bridges are representations of what may be some unknown part of some unknown conscious entity, according to Hoffman. Hoffman does not believe consciousness is exclusive to human beings.
We know there are such things as conscious entities because we're conscious entities. We have no evidence that there exist such things as non-conscious entities, and Occam's razor says we shouldn't take their existence on faith.
Conscious realism is the subject of one single chapter out of a whole book of proofs that realism is false. Hoffman states in the book that he put the section on conscious realism at the end because he doesn't want people to over-focus on it. This is just a proposed model and he hasn't put a lot of study into fleshing it out and testing it, in comparison with his work disproving realism. He suggests conscious realism only because he knew that some people aren't going to buy a single thing he says if he can't present an alternative theory. His primary goal was to refute the existing theory. He's a cognitive scientist, not a philosopher. He just wanted to prove that brains don't represent truth, because that's cognitive science. He's not in the business of inventing worldviews, he's just in the business of one narrow corner of science.
Hoffman explored these questions as an answer to the hard problem of consciousness: how can neurons give rise to consciousness. Hoffman says they don't. It's the other way around.
I find unrealism valuable because it makes my chaos magic stronger and lets me do more to help trans people. I also think the revolution must be unreal in order to effect lasting change. Realism was used to justify cultural genocide of indigenous ways of thinking. That's crap and we should stop doing that.
mods make this a tagline