Models versus Reality...

[Obvious Leo]

Hegel lays out a withering criticism of the notion of knowing reality without ideas.

Do you seriously reckon the official apologist to the Prussian court deserves a mention when it comes to the philosophy of science? How very quaint.

[The Inglorious One]

Overall, I think this comes under the second absurdity. It could also be listed as another absurdity, saying: "Maps are imperfect and therefore all maps are completely useless." But the underlined is something I allude to with an elephant analogy: We can have perfect knowledge of an elephant's brain and the correlation between its neural activity and the elephant's behavior, but never can we know what is like to be an elephant. This is why having perfect knowledge of the laws of physics is not in itself a "unifying principle." But this does not mean that maps are useless.

There's a huge difference between a map of an area and a map of reality. Any half intelligent person can use most maps to navigate. But a "map of reality" means what the reader thinks it means. It is just a bare outline without even a "You Are Here X" on it.

I addressed this when I said, "If everything is subjective, why is there general agreement between people looking at the same thing at the same time? My answer: Because the observers and the observed share the same logical inner structure; they emanate from the same lawful and ever-becoming ground."

Hegel lays out a withering criticism of the notion of knowing reality without ideas.

Do you seriously reckon the official apologist to the Prussian court deserves a mention when it comes to the philosophy of science? How very quaint.

I'm gonna add this to my list of absurdities, of what happens when "think" without a map.

[Obvious Leo]

I addressed this when I said, "If everything is subjective, why is there general agreement between people looking at the same thing at the same time? My answer: Because the observers and the observed share the same logical inner structure; they emanate from the same lawful and ever-becoming ground."

How does your conclusion derive logically from your premise? If everybody in the world were to agree that the moon was made of cheese how does this make it so?

[The Inglorious One]

I addressed this when I said, "If everything is subjective, why is there general agreement between people looking at the same thing at the same time? My answer: Because the observers and the observed share the same logical inner structure; they emanate from the same lawful and ever-becoming ground."

How does your conclusion derive logically from your premise? If everybody in the world were to agree that the moon was made of cheese how does this make it so?

It seems like my list of absurdities gets longer every time you post.

What is your answer to the question, "If everything is subjective, why is there general agreement between people looking at the same thing at the same time?"

[A_Seagull]

"If everything is subjective, why is there general agreement between people looking at the same thing at the same time? My answer: Because the observers and the observed share the same logical inner structure; they emanate from the same lawful and ever-becoming ground."

[

Well that is an weird model, and certainly a subjective one! (Why 'lawful" or " ever-becoming ground'??)

The observation that there is "general agreement between people looking at the same thing at the same time" adds weight to the model that reality exists.

[Necromancer]

The observation that there is "general agreement between people looking at the same thing at the same time" adds weight to the model that reality exists.

It seems quite odd that two people using their real, biological eyes in reality are supposed to, "all of a sudden", see models. No, this comes down to the "mapmaking" in my opinion. The model must enter humanity in a man-made way.

The Inglorious One is right all the way to forever, probably consistent with what they write in the British Journal of Philosophy of Science, Analysis or Mind.

[Obvious Leo]

What is your answer to the question, "If everything is subjective, why is there general agreement between people looking at the same thing at the same time?"

Inter-subjectivity. If you don't know what it means look it up. Our subjective experience of the world around us does not arise in a conceptual vacuum but is entirely LEARNED. It was once thought that human infants were born blind but this has now been shown not to be the case. They are not born blind but they are born without the ability to see.

We do not see with our eyes. We see with our minds.

[A_Seagull]

The observation that there is "general agreement between people looking at the same thing at the same time" adds weight to the model that reality exists.

It seems quite odd that two people using their real, biological eyes in reality are supposed to, "all of a sudden", see models. No, this comes down to the "mapmaking" in my opinion. The model must enter humanity in a man-made way.

.

Well of course models are man-made, that is the whole point of the concept of a model!

[The Inglorious One]

What is your answer to the question, "If everything is subjective, why is there general agreement between people looking at the same thing at the same time?"

Inter-subjectivity. If you don't know what it means look it up. Our subjective experience of the world around us does not arise in a conceptual vacuum but is entirely LEARNED. It was once thought that human infants were born blind but this has now been shown not to be the case. They are not born blind but they are born without the ability to see.

We do not see with our eyes. We see with our minds.

I've read Ken Wilber so I know I know what intersubjectivity is. I also know that many in this forum absolutely detest what it logically entails. For if we see with our intersubjective minds (and I agree that we do), we see in conjunction with a collective Mind.

{Oh, the horror!! Maybe Meister Eckhart was right after all! "The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me." }

[Hobbes' Choice]

What is your answer to the question, "If everything is subjective, why is there general agreement between people looking at the same thing at the same time?"

Inter-subjectivity. If you don't know what it means look it up. Our subjective experience of the world around us does not arise in a conceptual vacuum but is entirely LEARNED. It was once thought that human infants were born blind but this has now been shown not to be the case. They are not born blind but they are born without the ability to see.

We do not see with our eyes. We see with our minds.

I've read Ken Wilber so I know I know what intersubjectivity is. I also know that many in this forum absolutely detest what it logically entails. For if we see with our intersubjective minds (and I agree that we do), we see in conjunction with a collective Mind.

{Oh, the horror!! Maybe Meister Eckhart was right after all! "The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me." }

Ridiculous.
A Collective Mind at least implies some sort of mystical or telepathic ability. This is not the case, as you cannot communicate directly with another mind. You don't even know if others have minds. There is a sort of Hegelian absurdity to this idea. You can use it as a shorthand but easily take it too far and credit the Geist with a will of its own.
Intersubjectivity, is simply the same language community agreeing on matters of fact. And this is all claims of 'objectivity" ultimately can amount to. This occurs when they observe the same phenomenon,in a context where they also have agreed a set of criteria for truth and falsehood. The reason "intersubjective" is used to to ram home the truth that we all are comparing our subjective experiences (we can do no better) with others; where there is resultant agreement we hold these things true.
All "objective" moral claims are of this sort.
It's not spooky, just practical. What you see as a collective mind is not a mind at all, but the sum of knowedge and understanding held by the human community. Whilst this is stored in individual minds, the communication of these things has to be done in a mundane way through speech, art, video, text etc... If it was really a "mind" none of this would be needed.

If you think about it the phrase "subjective experience" is totally tautological, as "objective experience" is meaningless.

[Obvious Leo]

Thank you Hobbes. Inglorious' comment was so infantile that I couldn't summon up the energy to swat it aside.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Thank you Hobbes. Inglorious' comment was so infantile that I couldn't summon up the energy to swat it aside.

I know the feeling.

[The Inglorious One]

Which is it? Do we see with our minds or do we see with our eyes?

Even your model of intersubjectivity requires self-consciousness to be a kind of communal consciousness. The question is, just how symbiotic is the relationship? Is it really all in the mind or is there physical aspect? Where are the boundaries? Just how fuzzy or concrete are they? Does the moon exist when I'm not looking at it? (A question that bothered Einstein, who said, "I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it.") Apparently, you think the moon exists when you're not looking at it, which contradicts the idea that we see with our minds.

Your model may be suitable for you, but for me, it's too mechanistic, too narrow and too limiting. Neither does it correlate with my own subjective experience very well, or physics, for that matter. But that's no reason for me to call it "infantile."

Ya know, it's funny. I didn't know how Hegelian my philosophy was until I started learning something about Hegel's philosophy. Agree or disagree, no one disputes his influence in modern thought.

I guess it's true: great minds think do alike.

[Scott Mayers]

It is not a matter of "models versus reality"; what we have is models OF reality.

And even the concept of reality is itself a model.

This is the underlying thing I'm trying to relate to others here. I don't think their is a conflict between models and reality.

Hegel lays out a withering criticism of the notion of knowing reality without ideas.

I will definitely read this but already agree. Hegel's logic was something I believed got overlooked. I don't know if it was just due to any of his potential other beliefs or if it was due to a purposeful distaste against Karl Marx's use of his ideas relating to politics and history. A rule of contradiction that acts to compel change is key to my own theories. Hegel was the first I knew who raised this.

[cladking]

What is your answer to the question, "If everything is subjective, why is there general agreement between people looking at the same thing at the same time?"

First off there isn't that much agreement between peoples' perceptions of what they're looking at. You can tell this by their descriptions and the fact the agreement can't be reached by a third party who reads or hears these descriptions no matter how detailed. The major differences won't be between those who speak different languages but between those who are electricians and those who are chemists or between biologists and botonists. Or between priests and paupers.

Yes, we see essentially the same thing from our perspective because ALL perspective today is a derivation of modern language, experimental science and the wiring of the human brain. Just as all rabbits run from foxes, and all mosquitos becom flat when swatted, all people see beauty in the sunset. If perception of reality hadn't been excluded from science we'd all see things almost exactly alike and our descriptions would be identical. An electrician would describe things like a zoologist. But instead we each understand the world in terms of models and each person sees different models while no one even seems to realize there's actually an underlying reality. We don't see it because we can't model it and we can't model it because it is many quadrillions of times more complex than what we, even in aggregate, do understand. We are mistaking our models for reality and then pronouncing ourselves virtually omniscient.

It is language that is deluding us by defining a perspective from which we only see what we know. Reality is hidden from us in its entirety but logic, experiment, and observation can help obtain tiny glimpses of it.