So pizza delivery guy is now a swear word? The P-word. So funny guys.

As I live and breath, a Thread with some substance.
And to think, all this envelope pushing from one of the RSer's biggest whipping boys. Jamest, wish you were here to see it.

So is it settled, science isn't objective? Glad that got cleared up.

Science is a tool used to define reality. The work performed by science is interpreted by the subjective mind of man.
Subsequently objectivity is out the door...of course there are always the literalists, I.E. Gravity etc - lets call it a collective collusion.
Here's the fun part - as mentioned on a couple of posts in this thread, the independent mind interpreting reality.

surreptitious57 wrote:
Now it does not matter whether the model is actually false or not but whether it is accepted as being so. Everything I think or say or do is mind dependent. Because without a mind none of that is possible. Now usually one tends not to think
like this since it is so automatic that it is not questioned but when it is it becomes obvious that nothing can be experienced
without a mind.

And from that perspective; nothing exists without first being imagined. That would be the independent mind part.
Think Ghost Busters, Dan Aykroyd, Stay Puft Marshmallow Man - of course allowing for what we can accept of course.

surreptitious57 wrote:
First objects that have existed longer than I have cannot logically be mind dependent

Not to go down that rabbit hole, but: How would you know???

Samsa wrote:
But that assumes that idealism means something like lucid dreaming. Things can be out of your conscious control without being mind-independent, like regular dreaming for example where I can't escape some monster I've created in my nightmare but it's still mind dependent and I still try to avoid it because I think it eating me will hurt.

Can the brain tell the difference between an imagined experience and a real experience? Before you answer: Eat a pickle.

Jamest wrote:
Science, as it is, is not our best hope for the future.

I can agree with this...fortunately Science expands with our knowledge base. (Science isn't our knowledge base, Science is our tool) It'll catch up with our imagination.

Jamest wrote:
Incorrect. Religion is a truth GIVING system.

Sounds reasonable to me...Spoon feeding a hungry populace, just like media feeds the public about scientific discoveries...Its what a mind independent person wants to hear...for example: Global warming, everyone uses the same data - The target audience dictates the sermon baby. Subjectivity

Templeton wrote:As I live and breath, a Thread with some substance.
And to think, all this envelope pushing from one of the RSer's biggest whipping boys. Jamest, wish you were here to see it.

So is it settled, science isn't objective? Glad that got cleared up.

Science is a tool used to define reality. The work performed by science is interpreted by the subjective mind of man.
Subsequently objectivity is out the door...of course there are always the literalists, I.E. Gravity etc - lets call it a collective collusion.
Here's the fun part - as mentioned on a couple of posts in this thread, the independent mind interpreting reality.

surreptitious57 wrote:
Now it does not matter whether the model is actually false or not but whether it is accepted as being so. Everything I think or say or do is mind dependent. Because without a mind none of that is possible. Now usually one tends not to think
like this since it is so automatic that it is not questioned but when it is it becomes obvious that nothing can be experienced
without a mind.

Not quite. Science allows us to distinguish between real and imagined.

And from that perspective; nothing exists without first being imagined.

That would be the independent mind part.
Think Ghost Busters, Dan Aykroyd, Stay Puft Marshmallow Man - of course allowing for what we can accept of course.

surreptitious57 wrote:
First objects that have existed longer than I have cannot logically be mind dependent

Not to go down that rabbit hole, but: How would you know???

Samsa wrote:
But that assumes that idealism means something like lucid dreaming. Things can be out of your conscious control without being mind-independent, like regular dreaming for example where I can't escape some monster I've created in my nightmare but it's still mind dependent and I still try to avoid it because I think it eating me will hurt.

Can the brain tell the difference between an imagined experience and a real experience? ...

Not at the time, but sometimes after the event (eg, in the case of dreaming, when you wake up). There is a problem in the case of false memory, because it is hard to confirm the fasleness, unless there is the option of independent confirmation or denial (eg, you imagine there has been a war in some country at a particular time, but historical records then show that it did not happen).

Templeton wrote:...
Can the brain tell the difference between an imagined experience and a real experience? Before you answer: Eat a pickle.
...

Ahh. Yes it can! That is where we got the idea for imagined experiences.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Templeton wrote:...
Can the brain tell the difference between an imagined experience and a real experience? Before you answer: Eat a pickle.
...

Ahh. Yes it can! That is where we got the idea for imagined experiences.

Usually, I can tell the difference, of course, but a long time after the event, I occasionally begin to wonder whether a certain memory was of a real experience, or whether I just imagined it!

Memories can certainly be modified or even completely fabricated. There was a recent research result of implanting memories in rats....

and clearly eye-witness testimonies have shown to be wildly at odds with each other and sometimes reality even though they certainly believe completely what they are claiming in most cases.

kennyc wrote:Memories can certainly be modified or even completely fabricated. There was a recent research result of implanting memories in rats....

Really? Are you sure you aren't imagining it?
But, seriously, have you got a reference for it?

It's commonly known I thought....but...

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/11 ... me-092012/

http://www.geekosystem.com/memory-distortion-in-brain/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/am- ... hink-it-is

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... 50/?no-ist

Implanting memories in mice:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/com ... use-brain/

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23447600

Of course I could be having nothing more than a 'subjective experience of shit.'

Thanks for the links, Kenny.
Washington Post article

...
What if the mice allow their dream-selves to be hit by a train? What if …

What do they mean, "dream selves"? Are they suggesting that an implanted false memory of being hit by a train might cause a heart attack, or something?
To me, that would be the kind of false memory that you can easily dismiss as "not credible", for the obvious reason that you're still alive!

EDIT: It is quite possible to have a nightmare in which you dream that you are hit by a train, but you would surely just wake up with a start, then feel relieved that it was all just a dream. If your heart is weak, you might get a heart attack from such a nightmare, I suppose, but then you would then be vulnerable to that in any case, surely.

I presume by 'dream selves' they mean the false memories....bad way to say it....I agree, it would have to be considered a 'false' memory or dream...because it doesn't match reality.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Ahh. Yes it can! That is where we got the idea for imagined experiences

You ate a pickle? all you had to do was think about it. You get the same physical response when you thought of eating a pickle as when you eat one. Same neuro-pathways, same metabolic pathways, same emotional response....get the picture? Eh, probably not.

DavidMcC wrote:
Not quite. Science allows us to distinguish between real and imagined.

Science the tool or science the subjective mind of the interpreter?
What mind designs the science?

In response to:
, and

Nothing exists without first being imagined - When we experience something our brain receives the data from our senses, and inputs that information into our neuro-net, the associative collective of memories, - our mind. We compartmentalize our experiences, our memories, so when you experience an event the new data is analyzed by these categories, these memories, to see where it will fit in the data base. If it doesn't fit, or only partially fits, our brains fill in the blanks, by imaging, imagining the rest.
So when we use science, our tools, it actually helps to have an imagination, without one, can we experience anything other than the past?

Templeton wrote:[....

Nothing exists without first being imagined - .....

Bullshit. Drop the bullshit.

You think the sun doesn't exist without imagining it. You think gravity doesn't exist without imagining it. I invite you to fly to the sun or jump off the Empire State Building.

kennyc wrote:

Templeton wrote:[....

Nothing exists without first being imagined - .....

Bullshit. Drop the bullshit.

You can stick with rats if you like.

The brain uses imaging all the time, in fact yours is doing it right now, right there in your frontal cortex. imaging that.

Kennyc wrote:
You think the sun doesn't exist without imagining it. You think gravity doesn't exist without imagining it. I invite you to fly to the sun or jump off the Empire State Building.

Oh look a Literalist We're talking about the mind here sunshine (see what I just did there, fly to the sun, sunshine...Oh, never mind) There's not much humor here at RS, nor is there with fanatics, correlation? I think so.

Templeton wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Ahh. Yes it can! That is where we got the idea for imagined experiences

You ate a pickle? all you had to do was think about it. You get the same physical response when you thought of eating a pickle as when you eat one. Same neuro-pathways, same metabolic pathways, same emotional response....get the picture? Eh, probably not.

DavidMcC wrote:
Not quite. Science allows us to distinguish between real and imagined.

Science the tool or science the subjective mind of the interpreter?
What mind designs the science?

In response to:
, and

Nothing exists without first being imagined - When we experience something our brain receives the data from our senses, and inputs that information into our neuro-net, the associative collective of memories, - our mind...

As Kenny said, you are confusing external events with our experience of them.

So when we use science, our tools, it actually helps to have an imagination, without one, can we experience anything other than the past?

Sure, and I have posted in old threads on the scientific method, that we need imagination to create hypotheses. However, if we imagine the results of experiments, then we are not being good scientists, and those results will probably not reproduce when others attempt to replicate them, as the scientific method requires.

Templeton wrote:So when we use science, our tools, it actually helps to have an imagination, without one, can we experience anything other than the past?

I'm not sure why you think that. Imagination is not the same as memory, unless it is false memory, in which you imagine a past that you did not have.

DavidMcC Wrote:
As Kenny said, you are confusing external events with our experience of them.

Actually I was responding to the Mind Dependent subtopic in relation to the OP.

DavidMcC wrote:
Sure, and I have posted in old threads on the scientific method, that we need imagination to create hypotheses. However, if we imagine the results of experiments, then we are not being good scientists, and those results will probably not reproduce when others attempt to replicate them, as the scientific method requires.

Given that we use imaging to create our reality individually - I.E. Subjectivity. Then the subjectivity we use to interpret the results of experiments taints the results - for example, in a broader sense - Global Warming. That same subjectivity, when a scientist experiences the unknown impacts the determination. The scientific method, as you mentioned requires repeatability - to confirm reality. A few posts back I mentioned collective collusion...are we all in agreement? <------

DavidMcC wrote:
I'm not sure why you think that. Imagination is not the same as memory, unless it is false memory, in which you imagine a past that you did not have.

Yes and no, we use our memory to fill in the blanks - When we experience something, we compartmentalize that experience/experiment in an attempt to fit it into a compartment in our memory bank. Something that looks, smells, sounds alike to something we experienced in the past. We use our past memory, it looks like this, it acts like that, in an attempt to put it into a compartment, a box so that we can understand it, and how it fits into our existing reality. The "no" part is when we look outside the box, what do we get?

Templeton wrote:A few posts back I mentioned collective collusion...

The main thing about collusion, Templeton, is that attempting to cover up a lie is more trouble than it's worth for anyone but liars. In the long run, exposing a lie is not as much work as maintaining it.

The Templeton Foundation spends millions of dollars to prop up lies.