You can’t posit a fact without first assuming a mind. — Noah Te Stroete

Positing a fact is different than the fact itself.

A fact is nothing more than the order that the mind gives to the world. Without minds, there would be no facts.

Positing is something that we do. Mind-independent facts are not something we do. They just are.

A fact is nothing more than the order that the mind gives to the world. Without minds, there would be no facts. — Noah Te Stroete

Why would you believe such nonsense? What led you to that conclusion?

No. Consciousness is immanent in the world. I’m not a physicalist. How do you explain the fact that quanta change behavior once they are observed?

How do you explain the fact that quanta change behavior once they are observed? — Noah Te Stroete

Via noting that scientists have a tendency to reify instrumental models. They're particularly bad about that when it comes to anything mathematical.

So quanta are just models, but hydrogen being the most abundant atom in the universe is not a model? Or that trees are deciduous or coniferous?

So quanta are just models, — Noah Te Stroete

Keep track of what you asked about. You asked about the idea of "changing behavior when observed." I didn't say "everything is an instrumental model," but I immediately guessed you'd go there (as if I did say that), because people in general also have a weird tendency to assume universal, simplified generalizations.

It’s not a simplified generalization. It’s a fact that the mind models the physical world. The things-in-themselves have no facts independent of a mind. I’m not saying they’re not real. I’m just saying it doesn’t make sense to speak of “mind-independent facts”. You’re assuming an observer.

I’m leaving town for a few hours. This is a fascinating conversation to me, but I will have to put it on hold.

It’s not a simplified generalization — Noah Te Stroete

It would be to assume that I was saying "everything is an instrumental model" just because I said one thing is. That's what I was talking about re that phrase.

It’s a fact that the mind models the physical world. — Noah Te Stroete

Sure. But that's not all it does, and the fact that the mind models the physical world doesn't imply that that's all there is.

The things-in-themselves have no facts independent of a mind. — Noah Te Stroete

Again, why would you believe such nonsense? How would you come to that conclusion?

Because a fact is an article of knowledge. It’s epistemic. Not metaphysical.

No. A standard way to use "fact," in both philosophy and the sciences, is that it's a state of affairs, independent of our knowledge. We make statements about facts. Our knowledge is about facts. And we can get the facts wrong. We can be wrong about what the world is really like (which we can only know because we can get it right, too).

When you have time in the future I want you to answer how you're coming to the conclusions you are re mind-independent facts, whether we can know them, etc.

How does the truth condition work then?

To get into my truth theory is going to be a big tangent. Don't you not have time at the moment? And we should probably start a different thread about it, because it would be a long, involved thing that would be getting even further off topic.

Also, if you have time I want you to answer this first: how you're coming to the conclusions you are re mind-independent facts, whether we can know them, etc.

We say we have justified true beliefs to have knowledge. But the truth condition may not refer to anything mind-independent. States of affairs are inherently mind-dependent. That’s how we can talk about them.

States of affairs are inherently mind-dependent. — Noah Te Stroete

If you have time, I want you to tell me the process by which you reached that conclusion.

My wife is still getting ready. Lol

Isn't she just an idea in your own mind on your view?

No. But what she is really like independent of mind cannot be known.

What possible grounds would you have for saying she's not just an idea in your own mind then?

Because I believe in the physical world. I believe we get sense data from it. But I don’t think it makes sense to speak of her as mind-independent. She has a mind and I have a mind.

In other words, it’s our minds which make sense of the sense data. Sense data isn’t things-in-themselves.

Because I believe in the physical world. I believe we get sense data from it. — Noah Te Stroete

I know this. I'm asking you on what grounds do you believe this, given your views?

Gotta go now. Be back later.

Of course brains encode the contents we are aware of, but neither contents nor the processing of contents entails awareness of contents.

I am not sure how the brain encoding relates to whether norms have a basis in extramental reality, which was the point we were discussing.

Do they objectively justify the application of norms? — Terrapin Station

Yes. To thrive, you need to follow norms, not as rigid rules, but as defaults to be observed in the absence of overriding considerations.

Yes. To thrive, you need to follow norms, not as rigid rules, but as defaults to be observed in the absence of overriding considerations. — Dfpolis

Don't you have to desire to thrive rather than not thrive?

Of course brains encode the contents we are aware of, but neither contents nor the processing of contents entails awareness of contents.

I am not sure how the brain encoding relates to whether norms have a basis in extramental reality, which was the point we were discussing. — Dfpolis

I was trying to make the point that brain encoding, an objective phenomenon, gives rise to mental states as an emergent property. Normatives are thus objective as being encoded in the brain, and the emergent property of consciousness makes us aware of them. At least that’s what I think I was trying to say.

I was further discussing the objective fact that brains and their emergent mental states model reality through sense data, giving order to the chaotic natural world. Normatives are also an attempt to order human conduct, also a part of the natural world.

I know this. I'm asking you on what grounds do you believe this, given your views? — Terrapin Station

I believe a physical world is the best possible explanation for the variety of our sense data, the fact that they are able to be communicated intersubjectively and that they seem to come from without. Furthermore, it is impossible to communicate solely in the language of sense data without using outside world language to give it context.

Our minds interpret sense data. We do not have direct apprehension of the physical world. It is filtered through the senses and interpreted by the mind. So if that is the case, we model the physical world in our minds through sense data and our order-seeking circuitry. In that case, there are no mind-independent facts.

Our minds interpret sense data. We do not have direct apprehension of the physical world. It is filtered through the senses and interpreted by the mind. — Noah Te Stroete

What do you consider to support the above belief?