Re: You say that science is not about truth, meaning, knowledge, or faith

reany_at_asu.edu
Date: 03/04/05 

Date: 4 Mar 2005 11:06:10 -0800

AllYou! wrote:
> <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
[snip]
> > > According to you, the existence of anything is a free
> > > invention of the human mind, and people consist of matter, as do
> > measuring instruments.
> >
> > That is totally wrong!!! I define my "internal world" as the set of
my
> > mental concepts and all my thoughts. I define the "external world"
as
> > all else. I believe, contrary to what Weston constantly lies about
me,
> > that there exists an external world independent of my thoughts (my
> > internal world). However, the internal world of concepts, which I
use
> > to model or describe what may or may not be in the external world
> > (which is unknowable), are freely invented: that is, my internal
world
> > is NOT forced on me by the external world, even though I admit that
> > there seems to be strong natural tendencies on how this "mapping"
> > between them occurs. That is, I believe, a little part of what
Einstein
> > meant by "persistent illusion."
>
> You're starting to come around, but you're not quite there yet.

I haven't changed my opinion on the internal-external world distinction
in 20 years.

> Your internal world has
> sub-categories as well. While you are free to develop any concept
you wish, you are not
> free to associate any stimuli with any concept. IOW, whatever
concept you've developed
> for the notion of red was developed in your mind. How freely this
was invented by you is
> debatable, but not by me at this time. Anyway, whenever your eyes
are stimulated by the
> light frequency which you've always associated with the concept of
red, you will associate
> it with that concept again if all else remains the same. You have no
choice in the
> matter.

Prove it.

Besides that, I already told that there are two distinct meanings to
"free." One meaning is the use of choice; the other meaning is "no
logical connection between the external and internal worlds." What the
latter means, is that, even if there is some forced mapping on us
between the internal and external worlds, it isn't a function of the
structure or essence of the external world itself, nor does it arise
from within it. Who knows what it would be? I don't claim to know or
even guess.

[snip]

> > The purpose of this 'model' of yours is what?
>
> As to the purpose, primarily it's survival, secondarily, a more
> comfortable experience, thirdly, curiosity.

How is this scientific model used for survival? And what is the
curiosity value of it?

Patrick

Relevant Pages