Models versus Reality...

[Scott Mayers]

The singularity went out with the Elvis sideburns and the platform shoes, Scott.

I didn't get that impression. It's very much still alive and the interpretations vary across the board. It is defined as the point that is inferred from an expansion going back in time that defines the universe as being 13.8 Billion years old. It is also the foundation of the Big Bang over the Steady State theory.

By the way, you might be interested in checking this out for the strict sciences. I'm re-challenging the site in hopes of getting more directly involved with others directly in the science fields if or where they exist. They can be tough but you might like it. (I'd actually be more in tune with you in contrast to some of the other's. http://www.scienceforums.net/.) This site [PhilosophyNow, that is] is more appropriate for the philosophy but you might want to introduce yourself in the small philosophy subdivision there before checking out the main science forums.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Perhaps,I am misunderstanding you,but you seem to have been saying that models do not help us understand reality.
Of course they help us understand reality, all along, and eventually finally! Time is funny that way!


Since all knowledge is based on models that means that any knowledge about reality is impossible.
No! It's inevitable, eventuality!

That is what I'm saying so you haven't misunderstood me.
Then you're not correct.
The way we decide to model reality is purely subjective
Which does not necessarily mean we're 'incapable' of understanding reality, from it's perspective, eventually.

and thus its truth value can never be determined
There is a difference between currently and never, Mr Ob.

but if these models make no sense we can be sure we've got something badly wrong
Of course, depending on who's particular sense we're talking about; remember "subjective?

because our universe is obviously an orderly and comprehensible place.
Whether one is capable of ascertaining such things, is dependent upon ones sensing, isn't it?

The absolute truth is out there, that is to say, reality was before we were, and we were born of reality, thus we are a reflection of that reality; reality runs through our veins, and crosses our synapses! But for our fear of death, we reel, so there's no necessary telling of what may come out of someones mouth, for that fear denied! The, so called, unconscious mind, might be simply denial by the conscious mind. And there's your subjective.

No Crony here! You'll not get a free ride from me. Never for sale am I! The Grey one believed this to be the case as well.

[SpheresOfBalance]

spheres of balance and cladking,

You, spheres, only mentioned 'epigenetics' but then opted to define 'genetics' instead.
No, I did not! Look it up before making a fool of yourself.
Epigenetics is how the environment indirectly switches on present genes among what is normally already there, not to adding new means to adapt. That is epigenetics cannot actually add new information on how to evolve. It only switches on those traits that are among the "junk" DNA.
Incorrect, genes evolve as well, but you can call it "switching on" and "normally already there" if you like.

"Fitness" in genetics is not about quality of ones in an upward projected evolution towards some advanced super-being.
Surely a reflection of your own mind as you talk to yourself, as surely I've neither said nor implied such things. But since you brought it up, that is in fact the case, well sort of.

It means only that if survival to maturity (to procreate) requires being able to survive within one's given environment because your genetic outward qualities (phenotypes) "fit" meaning "to match" with the environment.
You would argue whether it was the chicken or the egg, but in fact it was both, simultaneously.

This can mean for instance if you were forced to live in a dark cave all your life but had say some accidental gene that provided you with better night vision or an ability to survive naturally on bugs, if you live long enough to make babies, you are considered a 'fit' to survive in that cave as an environment.
No! Rather that because the animal is forced to change, it either adapts or dies off. The animal fears death, such that it always tries it's best to adapt, and it usually does, one way or another.

Your survival over someone who might not handle living long enough in that cave without sunlight could make the difference between a you surviving over a Brad Pitt.
Is he your idol?

Also, included in what is "fit" is mere factors of environmental luck that favors you by mere stupid fortune over another for no other good reason.
Here you are misinformed, we are in fact, "of the universe." The universe courses through our veins and crosses our synapses. We are it's crowning achievement. We are the universe, the universe are we. All you people, raise your hands, that don't want to survive as long as you possibly can. Yeah that's what I thought, no takers! It's offspring change as the universe changes, that's environment, that's epigenetics!

For us to change that which the universe sets in motion, on the other hand, is a fools game. The result of the 'very' intense fear of not surviving, indeed, to hysteria; cutting off the nose to spite the face; blinded by the light of a glittering prize!

Spheres that balance is the key, look at the universal model and see! Biosphere! Synergy! Symbiosis! Orbs that orbit! From the imbalanced hydrogen to the noble gas helium! Or do you cherish a super nova at relative position zero; a gamma ray burst, on axis; or a black hole at the event horizon? Climate change, really? But I digress, so as to chastise the dumbest of the animals, those that are hysterical with fear.

[cladking]

"Fitness" in genetics is not about quality of ones in an upward projected evolution towards some advanced super-being.

Yes.

But "fitness" rarely plays a role in whether a given individual survives or dies. If you spread a toxin in the enviroment then odds are every individual which contacts the toxin will die. There's no "fitness" involved. Instead in the reality the survivors are individuals whose behavior has somehow managed to save them from exposure. It's their behavior that saved them.

Our concept of "sin" is a confusion of the ancient knowledge that some behaviors were more likely to lead to annihilation.

"Evolution" occurs at population bottlenecks and is the result of the simple fact that the survivors share genetics that predisposes them to specific behavior. We have a warped understanding of species change because we're looking at it backward. We simply tend to be blind to the fact that all living things are individuals and there's no such thing as an oak tree or a rabbit. There are merely individuals which appear to share characteristics and can reproduce together. When they reproduce they don't create acorns or little bunnies; they produce unique individuals.

Words aren't real but we treat them as though they are. This provides "odd" perspectives.

[raw_thought]

“Perhaps, I am misunderstanding you, but you seem to have been saying that models do not help us understand reality.”
ME
Of course they help us understand reality, all along, and eventually finally! Time is funny that way!
Spheres
“Since all knowledge is based on models that means that any knowledge about reality is impossible.”
ME
No! It's inevitable, eventuality!
Spheres
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I think you are confused. I am not making the claim that knowledge about reality is impossible. I am saying that if Obvious Leo is consistent in his thoughts, he must say that any knowledge about reality is impossible.

[Obvious Leo]

I am saying that if Obvious Leo is consistent in his thoughts, he must say that any knowledge about reality is impossible.

I didn't realise that I'd left some room for ambiguity in what I said but this is exactly what I AM saying. I'm saying that we can only MODEL reality and that our models can make no statement about the ontological status of themselves. As I've said countless times this is basic Kant 101 which any philosophy undergraduate would be expected to understand. If you have a counter-argument to Kant then please put it.

[raw_thought]

Kant never said that any knowledge of reality is impossible.

[Obvious Leo]

Kant never said that any knowledge of reality is impossible.

He most absolutely and certainly fucking well DID. He was quite explicit in the "Critique" in defining the Noumenon as UNKNOWABLE.

[raw_thought]

I said that he never said that EVERYTHING is unknowable. Of course we know our own QUALIA.

[Obvious Leo]

If you imagine that I'm going to get into a discussion about qualia then you badly underestimate me. Watching my grass grow is far more interesting.

Q. When you see the colour red are you seeing the same colour red as I see when I see the colour red?

A. Who gives a fuck?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Kant never said that any knowledge of reality is impossible.

He most absolutely and certainly fucking well DID. He was quite explicit in the "Critique" in defining the Noumenon as UNKNOWABLE.

"any knowledge" is not "all".

Kant did say that the 'thing-in-itself', was unknowable but that the noumenon was imperfectly inferable through contemplation of objective thinking. So 'some' knowledge of reality is possible. As without this no phenomena would be possible.

[Obvious Leo]

According to Kant phenomena are made possible because reality is self-organising into patterns of order which are discernible to the observer. Unlike the Platonist perspective these patterns of order are not a function of the underlying Noumenon but a function of the cogniser of them. This notion of the Noumenon as formless is very much a reprise of Leibniz, albeit one reasoned from a different conceptual angle. It is the exact opposite of the Newtonian/Cartesian perspective which is an exclusively Platonist one.

[Scott Mayers]

Note: the red words are of "spheres of balance" responding to me a few posts up.

spheres of balance and cladking,

You, spheres, only mentioned 'epigenetics' but then opted to define 'genetics' instead.
No, I did not! Look it up before making a fool of yourself.

To quote you precisely, you said:

So you really don't believe in one of today's emerging sciences, epigenetics?

"epigenetics [ep-i-juh-net-iks]

noun, ( used with a singular verb)
1. Genetics. the study of the process by which genetic information is translated into the substance and behavior of an organism: specifically, the study of the way in which the expression of heritable traits is modified by environmental influences or other mechanisms without a change to the DNA sequence."
.................................--dictionary.reference.com--

In this you merely state "epigenetics" but then the following definition is one for "genetics" only. The actual definition of "epigenetics" is:

Epigenetics is the study, in the field of genetics, of cellular and physiological phenotypic trait variations that are caused by external or environmental factors that switch genes on and off and affect how cells read genes instead of being caused by changes in the DNA sequence. [Epigenetics Definition Source from Wikipedia ]

So,

Epigenetics is how the environment indirectly switches on present genes among what is normally already there, not to adding new means to adapt. That is epigenetics cannot actually add new information on how to evolve. It only switches on those traits that are among the "junk" DNA.
Incorrect, genes evolve as well, but you can call it "switching on" and "normally already there" if you like.

You, and not me, is wrong. Junk DNA is past saved genetic information from previous evolution via the mutation process and survival that merely turns on that portion of the DNA.

As a comparison, in computers, when you "delete" a file without actual 'wiping', the computer only deletes the index (or content) links to where the computer looks up that file. That is, "delete" doesn't actually erase the file but removes the link to it. This is like turning off the file. It allows the space where the file is to be written over or can be 'wiped' but in genetics, much of those files remain intact just in the same way. Thus, epigenetics is the process of re-indexing the link to that location to allow it to be used again. Note too that doing so can also cause real problems where they may conflict and so produce bad results just as much as ones that might help.

"Fitness" in genetics is not about quality of ones in an upward projected evolution towards some advanced super-being.
Surely a reflection of your own mind as you talk to yourself, as surely I've neither said nor implied such things. But since you brought it up, that is in fact the case, well sort of.

It means only that if survival to maturity (to procreate) requires being able to survive within one's given environment because your genetic outward qualities (phenotypes) "fit" meaning "to match" with the environment.
You would argue whether it was the chicken or the egg, but in fact it was both, simultaneously.

What? This doesn't follow.

This can mean for instance if you were forced to live in a dark cave all your life but had say some accidental gene that provided you with better night vision or an ability to survive naturally on bugs, if you live long enough to make babies, you are considered a 'fit' to survive in that cave as an environment.
No! Rather that because the animal is forced to change, it either adapts or dies off. The animal fears death, such that it always tries it's best to adapt, and it usually does, one way or another.

No, it USUALLY doesn't. This is the foundational fact that Darwin originated his theory on. That most animals die off is what gives evolution its ability to sort things out. It is an elimination process. I think we need a separate thread on evolution as this is quite a digression that doesn't relate to my thread OP.

Your survival over someone who might not handle living long enough in that cave without sunlight could make the difference between a you surviving over a Brad Pitt.
Is he your idol?[/quot]
No, I just used him as a stereotype of what most might relate to a successful phenotypically desired person (via his looks).

[Scott Mayers]

"Fitness" in genetics is not about quality of ones in an upward projected evolution towards some advanced super-being.

Yes.

But "fitness" rarely plays a role in whether a given individual survives or dies. If you spread a toxin in the enviroment then odds are every individual which contacts the toxin will die. There's no "fitness" involved. Instead in the reality the survivors are individuals whose behavior has somehow managed to save them from exposure. It's their behavior that saved them.

Our concept of "sin" is a confusion of the ancient knowledge that some behaviors were more likely to lead to annihilation.

"Evolution" occurs at population bottlenecks and is the result of the simple fact that the survivors share genetics that predisposes them to specific behavior. We have a warped understanding of species change because we're looking at it backward. We simply tend to be blind to the fact that all living things are individuals and there's no such thing as an oak tree or a rabbit. There are merely individuals which appear to share characteristics and can reproduce together. When they reproduce they don't create acorns or little bunnies; they produce unique individuals.

Words aren't real but we treat them as though they are. This provides "odd" perspectives.

You are transferring in your mind the meaning of "fit" to the invalid definition that has caused a lot of confusion. "Fit" only means "to match" in evolution. But because "fit" is also used to mean the different definition, "that which one is improved (in some beneficial way)" we accidentally impose this upon what evolutionists mean by "fit". So in your example of the toxin, the correct interpretation is that since the toxin is a function of the environment, this alone creates an environment 'unfit' to one's survival. This alters the environment because the toxin IS a part of one's environment.

One may 'choose' to act in ways that also help them. But this is often about removing oneself from this environment or altering the environment to one that 'fits' which allows them to persist. So it is still about environment.

[Hobbes' Choice]

According to Kant phenomena are made possible because reality is self-organising into patterns of order which are discernible to the observer. Unlike the Platonist perspective these patterns of order are not a function of the underlying Noumenon but a function of the cogniser of them. This notion of the Noumenon as formless is very much a reprise of Leibniz, albeit one reasoned from a different conceptual angle. It is the exact opposite of the Newtonian/Cartesian perspective which is an exclusively Platonist one.

I don't think this is fair. This might be fair of Berkeley (where its nothing but perception). But from what you are saying, Kant is denying the reality of the noumenon, which is ironic since he spends so much time talking about it.

So Kant agrees that we can only access reality through our senses, but he is not saying that the external world is JUST A "function of the cogniser." Even a cogniser has to have something to cause his cognition, and it is obvious enough that the cause has to have some consistency in order that we can make our world.
Kant sets out to reconcile Idealism with Realism, not to slavishly follow "dogmatic" Idealism.