Comment on Our understanding of reality might be a result of the way cousciousness works
CannonFodder@lemmy.world 2 weeks agoThat’s just not how science works. One can only postulate a theory, make predictions based on it, and test it. If you can come up with an experiment that shows the model false, it is disproved. Otherwise only if it stands the test of time, and useful predictions it becomes a law - although there’s always the caveat that it could still be proven false.
But you do have to start somewhere, with a framework for consistency and logic, or else you’ll never get anywhere and it’s a waste of time. That the universe is based on repeatable, consistent physical laws is about as basic of a framework as there could be. You can add abstract random magic into your model if it makes you happy, but I think it makes the model considerably less useful. Unless you can show me how it doesn’t, of course.
AnDoLiN@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Then why don’t you? Why are you starting at a logically flawed position? You are insisting the horse exists because there’s a cart. You insist that all models must adhere to your physicalist model, without proof. In any other case this would be called dogma.
No, science works by positing an idea and then pokes and prods at it until it either falls apart or survives. Yours keeps falling apart but you keep insisting. This is intellectually dishonest.
CannonFodder@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
What competing model do you propose? Why does my model fall apart?
AnDoLiN@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
lemmy.zip/post/58312368/24394920 this is the post you initially challenged. Both I and Ageedizzle have been having this conversation with you. Everything we bring to you, you dismiss as “magic”, “silly”, “navel gazing”. Because it doesn’t fit your paradigm, yet you can’t logically defend your paradigm as evidenced by the circularity of your arguments. They hinge on the unproven claim that matter is prior to consciousness.
I’ve been around this block a few times so I’ve seen this cognitive wall you got going on many times. It’s exactly the same as with religious people. I can’t force you to access enough impartiality and awareness to see the logical error.
CannonFodder@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You haven’t brought anything up as an alternative! You just keep saying my theory has assumptions. I’m just suggesting that anything other than a physical explanation is ‘magical’ as a semantic tool because whatever it is clearly sits outside of any scientific rigor. Whether you are looking to some spiritual entity, or universe simulation theory, I don’t know, so I can’t argue for or against those. In fact, those examples ar impossible to argue against because as models they have no consistency or predictable test mechanism. Yes, a physical model has assumptions - as conscious beings experiencing them, fundamentally we will always have to have some root assumptions for any model. But a physical model based on scientific process is different than say ‘god made it’ theory, because it’s based on observation, and impartial (within its own reference frame) testing. It’s reference frame is the only one that can produce useful and predictable results because it is the only one based on the notion that the universe is based on predictable rules. That doesn’t mean it’s correct, but I see it as the only worthwhile approach. You can ponder other models that introduce unknowable things, but they inherently will always be incomplete; hence the ‘naval gazing’ vernacular. There’s nothing wrong with gazing at a nice naval if you’re into that sort of thing, but it won’t really explain anything, or provide pragmatic results. Feel free to show me I’m wrong. I am not closed minded. But in the absence of a better model, I see no reason not to stick to a physical one.