Would he just admit that he hadn't thought of the ways science has uncovered his noumena? — Banno
I sometimes wonder if Kant, were he around and able to avail himself of our understanding of chemistry and physics. would puzzle that there were still folk who held to his surmise that there was unobservable stuff "behind" our observations. Would he just admit that he hadn't thought of the ways science has uncovered his noumena? — Banno
Hawking, if I recall correctly, also expressed quite a firm belief in model-dependent realism... If the views of our great scientists are anything to go by... — Isaac
I therefore take the view, which has been described as simple-minded or naïve, that a theory of physics is just a mathematical model that we use to describe the results of observations… Beyond that it makes no sense to ask if it corresponds to reality, because we do not know what reality is independent of theory.
...
According to model-dependent realism, it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation. If there are two models that both agree with observation, like the goldfish's picture and ours, then one cannot say that one is more real than another — Hawkings
According to the idea of model-dependent realism introduced in Chapter 3, our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the outside world. We form mental concepts of our home, trees, other people, the electricity that flows from wall sockets, atoms, molecules and other universes. These mental concepts are the only reality we can know. There is no model-independent test of reality. — Hawkings
Common sense leads us to assume that we see in Gestalts because the world itself is constituted of whole objects and scenes, but this is incorrect. The reason events of the world appear holistic to animals is that animals perceive them in Gestalts. The atoms of a teacup do not collude together to form a teacup: The object is a teacup because it is constituted that way from a perspective outside of itself. — Pinter, Charles. Mind and the Cosmic Order (p. 3).
Would he just admit that he hadn't thought of the ways science has uncovered his noumena? — Banno
So the observer plays an absolutely crucial role in this respect. Linde expresses it graphically: 'thus we see that without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time', and, 'we are together, the Universe and us. — Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life, p 271
There is a cause of this data, and we assume that cause is external to us (no solipsism). — Isaac
Would he just admit that he hadn't thought of the ways science has uncovered his noumena?
— Banno
No he wouldn’t, because science hasn’t, nor will any science done by humans, ever have the means for it.
Nahhhh.....crotchety ol’ Prussian would more likely be pissed at being intellectually bushwhacked.
Tasty bait. Thanks. — Mww
This is that there is the possibility of faulty cognition, which is able to be corrected through various rational means, so as to arrive a correct perception. — Wayfarer
underlying assumption is realist, specifically that there is a real [X] which exists even if we might have mistaken views about. — Wayfarer
There's a comment on teacups on the book I keep referring to — Wayfarer
he atoms of a teacup do not collude together to form a teacup: The object is a teacup because it is constituted that way from a perspective outside of itself. — Pinter, Charles. Mind and the Cosmic Order (p. 3).
↪Joshs Sure, I'm aware of such oddities. It looks like a reworking of god as the answer to the three problems I listed.
Pan-psychism brings with it all the problems of any supernatural entity.
Information transfer. That brings with it much the same issue as my original question to Wayfarer - When one's mind constructs reality, what is it it constructs it from? When information is transferred, what is it transferred in? Information is pattern; patterns are in something.
Moreover, if there is a something, independent of mind, then in what sense does the theory remain a version of idealism? — Banno
Buddhist philosophy denies the existence of substance in the philosophical sense, and also of the transcendental subject (ātman). But it still has an idealist school. — Wayfarer
A scientific instrumentalist will say that the mathematical model of an electron best describes and predicts the results of observation.
So a scientific realist will say that the Standard Model corresponds to the way the world is, whereas a scientific instrumentalist will just say that the Standard Models works. — Michael
To have a model of a cup necessarily implies there's a cup. Otherwise it's a model of what? — Isaac
in our shared world, we do have reason to believe those atoms are constituted that way intrinsically. — Isaac
. But... they still do genuinely form the shape of a hunter with his bow. — Isaac
Ken Gergen mentions some of the affinities he sees between buddhism and his model of relational being. — Joshs
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.