From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Thu, 6 Mar 2025, Richmond wrote:   
      
   >> Excellent question. I'd say it depends on if the man was blnd from   
   >> birth or not. If not, the man has experience and memories of light. If   
   >> he was, then light will basically be a meaningless concept that makes   
   >> absolutely not difference to him as far as he is concerned, and can be   
   >> disregarded.   
   >   
   > But he will wonder why other people do not bump into things. He will   
   > theorise. He will ask them and they will talk about light. He will   
   > theorise about what it is. He will create a model to understand what he   
   > hears. Is he wrong to do that?   
      
   Of course not. But there is a distinction here. Light is, at heart a physical   
   phenomenon in the world. To give a ridiculous comparison, god is by most   
   definitions completely outside of the world and therefore emipircal proof. That   
   is why he is definitely not wrong about speculating, although he can never know   
   what it is like to have sight.   
      
   What he can do... since light is a physical phenomenon, is to feel heat,   
   instruments could be designed that convert light to pitch, or some kind of   
   tactile scale.   
      
   >>   
   >>> And do we regard what we see in telescopes and microscopes as   
   >>> empirical?  or should we suspect some deception?   
   >>   
   >> We should regard it as things seen in telescopes which is reflected   
   >> light that shows us events in the past (if we're talking astronomy   
   >> here).   
   >   
   > But things seen in a telescope cannot be seen with the naked eye. So we   
   > are relying on a theory, that the telescope, because it bends light in a   
   > lens, shows us things which are really there, but we cannot perceive   
   > ourselves because they are too small. You ought to say these are purely   
   > theoretical objects.   
      
   This is true. So what we rely on is what we see through the instrument, we use   
   that to create models, predictions, which we can then empirically verify. If we   
   want to be strict about it, that is all we can commit too. The rest, is a   
   matter   
   of, probability. Since what we see in the instrument results in such great   
   predictions, we use the "shorthand" of saying that this thing exists. But the   
   shorthand should not be confused with reality. I think the example of electrons   
   better illustrates the point. They are models or theorized particles which work   
   as tools for our understanding. We can never verify the electron by our senses,   
   and thus we should keep the tool as lon gas it helps us to predict things in   
   the   
   world.   
      
   But we should not confused the map with the territory, which is very common   
   when   
   people say that electrons exist. We can never know that. What we can know is   
   how   
   they work, within the framework of our models, and that is fine, as long as we   
   remember the distinction between model and reality.   
      
   The key here is that electroncs represent phenomena in our physical world. This   
   is why it makes sense to keep them in our mental toolbox, and not discard them.   
      
   Let's shift outside the scope of our world to interpretations of quantym   
   physics, like the multiple world interpretation. In some interpretation   
   multiple   
   world are infered, but they can never affect our world, nor we them. Therefore   
   this is pure nonsense. They make no difference what so ever, and are more   
   likely   
   to lead us astray, and therefore we can happily "shut up and calculate" without   
   having to bother with the verbal and conceptual interpretations of the equation   
   of quantum physics.   
      
   >>   
   >>> And why do we regard the senses as reliable and direct, when we know   
   >>> that everything which comes from the senses is processed by the   
   >>> brain, so that we actually live in our own model of the world, not in   
   >>> the world as it is.   
   >>   
   >> We don't. That is why we have the method of science to constantly   
   >> refine our mental models to make better and better predictions. But   
   >> predictions and effects in the real world is what anchors us to the   
   >> truth.   
   >   
   > Ah, so we can theorise about electrons then, and as long as our theory   
   > makes predictions in the real world, we can accept them as part of   
   > reality?   
      
   True.   
      
   > But what do we do about optical illusions? And what do we do about the   
   > fact that we see the world in three dimensions, but we know the retina   
   > is two dimensional? (accepting it is concave). Aren't we seeing a   
   > construction, and theoretical interpretation?   
      
   In case of illusions, we acknowledge our mistake and revise our beliefs and   
   models if it is related to predictions and effects in the world.   
      
   When it comes to our percetpion of the world, we don't need to do anything at   
   all about it, since we have no choice but to accept it and act in the world. So   
   we are perfectly fine in not having any opinions at all about our view of the   
   world, unless we encounter errors which stop us from making predictions, in   
   which case we test, think, and revise our models and predictions.   
      
   >>   
   >> Remove that, and the solipsistic house of cards falls.   
   >>   
   >> Last but not least, we must remember the burden of proof falls on the   
   >> one who argues that the world is not, or is something else than it   
   >> appears to be. They must prove that the world is not, or that   
   >> something else is the truth (a simulation). Absent that, given the   
   >> fact that the world "happens" to us, without us trying, it is   
   >> reasonable to consider the world as fact.   
   >   
   > Why do I have to prove that the world is not as it appears? why don't   
   > you have to prove that it is as it appears? as we have plenty of   
   > examples of the brain deceiving us with optical illusions.   
      
   This is based on the fact that we are beings in the world. Except suicide, we   
   have no choice but to act in the world, as if, the world exists. It is hard   
   coded into our nature. Therefore the burden of proof is shifted onto someone   
   who   
   comes up with the idea that, let's say, "actually we are living in a   
   simulation".   
      
   Then we say, ok, show us proof of this. If this proof is presented, our default   
   state would have been falsified, and we update our mental models of the world.   
      
   Does this make sense?   
      
   Note that acting in the world, as if, it was the physical, material world,   
   requires no assumption or belief. We have no choice. That is why claims counter   
   to this have the burden of proof.   
      
   If the reverse were true, anyone could come up with anything ranging from gods,   
   simulations, pink unicorns, and intellectually it would be absurd to reason (in   
   my opinion) that we should have to prove the world over, say, a hidden cabal of   
   pink unicorns.   
      
   >> Should evidence of us living in a simulation appear, we humbly admit   
   >> our mistake and revise our model of reality. So far, no such empirical   
   >> proof has been presented to the best of my knowledge.   
   >   
   > Interesting that you raise the subject of memories in the blind man who   
   > could once see. How does he know his memories represent the past? People   
   > often disagree about the past, who said what etc. There have been   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)