the obvious fact — Wayfarer

Ahem...

I think (for what it's worth, probably not much) that there are more and less credible interpretations. I rather like Chris Fuchs QBism, — Wayfarer

Seems like the text you quoted is consistent with my position. One part in particular - "Many Worlds Interpretation isn’t useful because it doesn’t constrain our theories of physics," is similar to what I wrote -

there is no way to decide on a correct interpretation of QM empirically — T Clark

Although I was speaking of all interpretations, not just the many worlds.

I hadn't head of QBism. I looked it up. Thanks for the new information.

Agreed. A banning is never nice and no one likes to be ostracized. It is sad for the person to whom it happened Being gleeful about a decision which is needed, but sad is not very nice. He is not in the position to defend himself as well. — Tobias

Oh, shut up. — frank

He explained.

You don’t know what “projecting” means. Look it up. It doesnt just mean identifying traits in others that you yourself possess, its attributing traits to others based on your own possession of them. Attributing traits based on the other person actually having those traits is just being accurate and rational. — DingoJones

Really? Is that what this has come to? Quibbling about word meanings. Let's get back to the vituperation.

Anyone got a pair of dunce caps for these chuckleheads? — DingoJones

Ah, yes. That's more like it.

Have you noticed that those most eager to jump on the ‘pummel Batricks’ bandwagon share some of his uncivil tendencies? — Joshs

My goodness, I think you might be right.

So if we want to read people's minds one day, we need a way to listen qualitatively to their music -- the thoughts themselves in whatever materiality they take, be it brainwaves or something else. Not just measure quantitatively the level of effort spent in producing thoughts. — Olivier5

That makes sense.

It reflects badly on those who participate.
— T Clark
:roll: :rofl: :party: :party: :party: — Banno

Thank you very much for your support!

The only reason he lasted as long as he did was because of idiots like you who thought they found a sparring part er rather than a troll with a personality disorder. — DingoJones

[whisper]Hey @Joshs, I don't think DJ likes you.[/whisper]

I can't believe you said that about Tclark! :fire: — frank

I know!! It's terrible!!

You’re just lucky they don’t ban for self-righteous
twat-ness. — DingoJones

Hey @Jamal!! Hey @Baden!! DingoJones is being mean to me.

I would tend to disagree. — Olivier5

You may well be right.

Normally I consider the celebration of a ban unseemly... — Jamal

And it is. It reflects badly on those who participate.

As an old math person my suspicion is that "superposition" and "collapse of wave function" is nothing more than experimenting to discover which of multiple solutions of the partial differential equations describing phenomena actually apply in a particular instance. Multi worlds I consider science fantasy. — jgill

If, as is my understanding, there is no way to decide on a correct interpretation of QM empirically, it becomes not fantasy, but metaphysics. Or maybe just baloney.

I was subjected to Dick and Jane's Weltanschauung which bore scant resemblance to my reality. — BC

You see where little Sally is really pointing when she says "see dick." I think Moms for Liberty should get it banned from school libraries.

I was thinking of something more radical, like some science-induced telepathy, which would then allow us to feel what it is to be a bat. — Olivier5

It is a fairly common science fiction storyline. If such a technology were ever to be developed, I imagine it would start very simply with something like what has been studied with the MRI.

On the other hand, I think the potential for a mind reading device is pretty radical all by itself.

You want to be careful, many of those studies have been called into question. See Do you believe in God, or is that a Software Glitch? — Wayfarer

Agreed. I did not intend to imply that it was an established fact.

Is that the only way to do philosophy? Is it the right way? Are there alternatives? — Banno

Of course not. Of course not. Of course.

I would say my characterization applies to the edifice of philosophy as a whole, especially as practiced here on the forum.

I really like the word "edifice" especially when used in this context.

Everything you've written here could be said of any philosophy.

Maybe one day the state of our science will allow us to read the minds of bats, for instance. — Olivier5

I have heard of experiments using MRIs to correlate specific brain patterns with specific words. The claim is that this may someday allow reading minds. Here's a link to a 60 Minutes program discussing this. I have not watched this since it was originally on the air.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-rewind-mind-reading-2020-09-04/

Good hyper short story. — javi2541997

Thank you.

One day I wish to retire so I could become a farmer, which is something a farmer never said, and something no one ever said is that they wanted to retire so they could become a lawyer. — Hanover

As Shakespeare wrote (Henry VI, Part 2) - "The first thing we do, let's retire all the lawyers."

Oops!

Oops!...
Shit!...
Ouch!...
Will somebody please get the phone.

It's rude to refer to the police as pigs. — Banno

In Australia they refer to them as "numbats."

By the way, people with aphantasia have a statistically significant higher IQ. — frank

She is one of the smartest people I know.

At current rates of posting, Shoutbox 2 will overtake Shoutbox 1 in number of posts at 2:13 am on the 2nd of March 2031. — Baden

I think we all can agree this is the greatest, most ironic, thread in the history of TPF. We owe thanks to alan 1000. I suggest you pin it to the top of the first page right under The Shoutbox.

You may have something akin to aphantasia so that you have no frame of reference for understanding qualia. — frank

I have a friend who has, as she puts it, no minds eye. That doesn't mean she doesn't have visual experience, i.e. qualia. She sees things the way we do but can't create visual images in her memory or imagination.

There's a big difference between saying that introspection is potentially a valid form of evidence, and having actually accepted any incidences of introspection as valid evidence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Much of what I know about how the mind works is based on paying attention to how my mind works. I think introspection is the source of a lot of psychology and probably most of philosophy of mind.

But anyway, I think if you judge the original Chalmer's essay on its merits, it makes a pretty clear-cut case. It's about something very specific - without having to refer to Taoism or Kant or quantum physics. — Wayfarer

I've read it, but I'll read it again. You say "without having to refer to Taoism or Kant or quantum physics." I don't have to refer to Taoism or Kant. I refer to them because I think they are relevant. As for quantum mechanics, I have often said the so called "weirdness" of QM has nothing to do with consciousness.

I don't know if Kant nor the Tao Te Ching have specific any bearing on the question. — Wayfarer

Your question was "Any examples come to mind of sciences or scientists that do?" I can see I didn't answer that question very well, although I think my answers were relevant to how science might examine consciousness effectively. As I said in a previous post:

Phenomenology isn't really philosophy at all. It's psychology. So much of it makes definitive statements about phenomena and processes that can be verified or falsified using empirical methods. — T Clark

I wouldn't be surprised if psychologists have completed studies that are relevant to those questions, but I can't name any. I have set a new task for myself. On the other hand, if I'm right that the phenomena phenomenologists describe are subject to empirical verification or falsification, phenomenologists have made factual statements without evidence. I've been wondering whether the insights they describe are based on introspection, but I haven't seen acknowledgement that that is the case. I consider introspection a valid form of evidence, at least potentially.

As for the Tao Te Ching, it is a statement from that particular source of the perennial philosophy - you could find comparable aphorisms in Christian mystical theology, but again, for those who understand the world that way, there is no hard problem (or any problem :-) ) — Wayfarer

I think the Tao Te Ching, as well as Kant and Heidegger, make statements that are, at least potentially, empirically verifiable.

@Wayfarer

Any examples come to mind of sciences or scientists that do?
— Wayfarer

As I noted, I've thought about this a lot and I'm not at all satisfied with what I've come up with. I'll just throw out some ideas. — T Clark

Didn't notice it, I'll go back through the thread. — Wayfarer

between a science that recognizes that reality is inextricably tangled with human cognition and one that doesn't.
— T Clark

Any examples come to mind of sciences or scientists that do? — Wayfarer

You asked me a question and I spent significant time and effort providing a respectful response. You did not respond to that.

"Great" people don't know they are extraordinary. Never. When you want to do different things from the ordinary, there are a lot of chances to suffer criticism. This is what happened to Van Gogh or James Joyce. A good example of masters in literature and arts. Their works are magnificent but with the eyes of modern generations. Van Gogh was poor because nobody really bought any of his paints and James Joyce was not well understood by the literature critics.

So, to become "great" needs a lot of facts than just thinking I am good. You (we) need the approval from the rest of the people. — javi2541997

Yes. Exactly.

The sources that @Joshs and @Wayfarer linked me to, which were written in mostly plain English, were interesting and helpful. As I noted in a previous post, they seem like psychology to me more than they do philosophy. — T Clark

I've been rethinking this. Strikes me that if what I say here is true, Taoism as presented in the Tao Te Ching is also psychology. Which it is, of course, but that doesn't stop it from being philosophy too.

I wanted to say that he complained about "shoutbox" while he "shouted" in his posts in this thread. It is a paradox — javi2541997

I didn't object to "shouted," it was "literally." He used "shouted" metaphorically, i.e. figuratively, not literally. Literally would only apply if he actually said "shout" very loudly.

Let’s not forget those who did not make it here in the first place, high quality contributors such as To Mega Therion (fierce but fair Leninist physicist) and Sheps (wishy-washy socialist). A few others made it across but dropped out quickly, perhaps feeling that the death of PF was a good time to break the habit. — Jamal

I participated in the old forum, but not to the extent I have here. I can't even remember my user name. So I'm glad you've been able to fill in the gap a bit.

If we're going to talk forum history and mythology and stuff, we should not forget the heroes who have fallen on their swords or had their swords fall on them:

@TimeLine
@Sapientia or @S
@Streetlight
@Donald Trump Jr.
@Agustino
@Marco in his many manifestations
@Clarky
@Jamalrob
@Hugh G. Rection
@tim wood
@Buxtebuddha
@Posty McPostface
@Pattern-chaser
@Valentinus
@Terrapin Station

And many more

So suck it up, or fuck off. — Banno

I have been told that such language here on the forum is "hate speech."

they intend to show objectivist science is well on its way to explaining the subjective mind. — ucarr

I don't think I'd say "well on its way," but I think cognitive scientists and psychologists have made significant progress. Either way, that's not what you said I said. You said:

Your statement implies the belief commonplace subjective experiences should be easily accessible to the objectivist methodologies of science. It also implies the subjective/objective distinction is a trivial matter and should therefore be no problem for science. — ucarr

I didn't say or imply either of those things.

Was the above ad hominem incited by, — ucarr

It was not an ad hominem argument, it was an insult. The fact you don't recognize the difference tells me everything I need to know about whether or not to take you seriously.