May I quote:
Dr. Dick: "No, what is unknowable is the "truth" of the explanation: "Something B"! "Reality" is certainly knowable as it is defined as "what we know to be true"; that which we are trying to explain! "
You are missing something:
The nature of "Explanation" is a logically consistent network; "truth" is a property of explanations- the "truth" of an explanation is "whether or not it is non-contradictory".
Of course "explanations" are created by people; but insofar as they are logically consistent between their definitions and their connections; they are true patterns.
You can tell the difference betwen "truth" and "delusion"; "delusion" involves contradictions.
The "facts" you wish to "explain" can have network and layered aspects; these are also facts; where an "explanation" mirrors such a true network; it may be regarded as "corresponding to the facts", thus in accordance with the Tarski theory of "truth".
Aurino: "***** Aurino:
"I long ago realized that the commonly held definition of illusion implies that everything we perceive is an illusion, but of course not a lot of people are willing to accept that fact. And so it is that I had to find a solution for the problem on my own, and the best solution I could find was to get rid of the concept of an external reality altogether. "
Dr. Dick: "In essence that is exactly what I have done. However, I get to keep physics and any science which can be deduced from physics. It has been their inability to do that which has stopped the scientists from taking that selfsame step."
Dr. Dick; this is not new. Have you heard of James Burke? A T.V. series called "Connections"? A T.V. series called "Reality", where this major contention of yours re: the pattern-truth of explanations was well demonstrated?
If you read philosophy you would find that a lot of water has gone under these bridges; even though presumably none of the others pulled physics out of the hat along the way.
In reply to Aurino, Dr. Dick admits that he has got rid of the concept of external reality. That means he has accepted John Hospers exposure of the "telephone exhange" fallacy.
Dr. Dick wrote:
"It's a hopeless battle for the close minded! As I have commented elsewhere, see my answer to Alan:
http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/15910.shtml I admit I sometimes get insulting and obtuse intentionally. Particularly when I find myself dealing with small minds. "It keeps people honest! Drives off the riffraff so to speak; anyone with an open mind can comprehend that it is possible for [any] "dogmatic claim" to be correct and lays belief aside in favor of thought!"
It might be most unpleasant to be on the receiving end of deliberate insults! But what is really puzzling; is I thought Dr. Dick held "logical consistency" in high regard. Yet he appears to be logically inconsistent from time to time.
Dr. Dick makes a fallacious assumption that I don't think? I have thought plenty; and his claim about not ever being able to "know what it is all about" is a pessimistic falsehood in my experience! I have thought things out. Dr. Dick seems tragically affected by fatalism; I extend my sympathy over his experience of darkness; but there is light if you look for it! Fair comment?
The "fatalist" outlook is at least as much a "religion" just as much as the "optimist" outlook is. Does Dr. Dick consider it possible for a rational, open-minded person to disagree with his religion? Or is agreeing with Dr. Dick the very definition of "rational and open-minded" in his book? What happened to religious freedom?
To be truly rational and open-minded is to let people be responsible for themselves and their own opinions; invite them to challenge your views but live and let live. To be open to argument; without needing to resort to repression or dictatorial methods!
When I stated the desireability of "noticing what exists" and "being honest" and "not denying any data"; I got rubbished by Dr. Dick as being religious and told he is not interested in discussing religious matters.
Yet in the same post; Dr. Dick held forth in a religious manner! He used phrases like "the fact that..."; but when I pointed out that he was presenting theories as "facts"; he retracted and admitted that they were just his opinions.
So he admitted holding forth with personal opinion; in the same post as he rubbished me for saying allegedly opinion-type things which he dismissed as "religious". This is called double-standards!
It is inconsistent.
Dr. Dick seems to infer that other people are "closed minded", but that he is "open minded". His track record shows otherwise. On his own admission (in the past); he hates losing arguments. How can you possibly be open-minded; if you select your oponents in debate so as to boycott anyone who might show you to have made an error? How can boycotting people be open-minded?
How does Dr. Dick figure that "making dogmatic claims" keeps people honest? I guess it exposes those who can see through such claims; they are likely to object, as they would object to any dictatorship? One rule for Dr. Dick; another for everyone else? Dr. Dick apparantly allows himself to make dogmatic assertions, and insists that people lay aside their skepticism and consider that his asertions might be true.
But others are not allowed the luxury of Dr. Dick's rule for themselves! Claims by others are summarily dismissed by Dr. Dick. Dr. Dick considers that he need not consider the possibility that the claims of others may be true!
(Yet inconsistent with this, his paper invokes the idea of "encompassing all possibilities")
So you have some of the characteristics of a, not wishing to offend here but isn't it kind-of-like, like there's this feeling of a dictatorship-aspect in dealing with Dr. Dick? He is convinced he is right; he represses debate by having a system of favourites and outcasts; if you are intelligent enough and sharp-thinking enough to see through his fallacious positions- he may ignore you for long periods! It is disgraceful to see how Harv sometimes is reduced to 'fear and trembling' (exaggeration) over whether he still finds favour with Dr. Dick!
However, I do not mean to cast stones at Dr. Dick; only to invite him to crucify me. Dr. Dick; ignore me as you wish, you are free to do so. But you have been nice to me in the past. You are not even consistently unpleasant! I refuse to lose faith in your nice nature!
Dr. Dick, you even admitted recently that you liked what I found re: "information theory"! If I feel down about how you treat me, I need only go back to Counterbalance to see what a fine fellow you are! You used to talk to me and to Franz like how you here for a long time talked mostly only to Harv. Real debate.
At "No, I am afraid we do not agree!" a response to a "Physics, Laws, Models, And Reality" topic of mine, you explained a scenario involving an Egyptian. This was a very revealing explanation. I carefully went through it and got a major insight into your system.
But you said you didn't know what the word "distinction" meant as I used it. I only used it in its ordinary meaning. But I never heard from you what you made of my explanation now you knew what the word meant in my post.
When I introduced the idea that your whole discovery/paper could be explained in terms of "comparing and matching patterns"; that seemed to upset you, and I have been rarely spoken to by you since.
Aurino wrote: "but by approaching the problem from a slightly different perspective you might be able to express your ideas using a different terminology. That might help people understand it. You see, people's reaction to words has a strong emotional component, if you let that get in the way of your argument you might find yourself fighting against people's feelings, and you know that's a hopeless battle."
That is very perceptive of Aurino: I think it may apply to Dr. Dick! Maybe he resists the other perspectives that I offer on his work, the evidence that others have travelled parts of his path; because of emotional determination by Dr. Dick to be the sole discoverer of an allegedly original thought? This does not seem like the whole story, or might not be a credible theory.
Could the bad way his colleagues apparently treated him still be casting a shadow on how he perceives others now, re: his paper?
I think Dr. Dick genuinely prefers people to follow the exact path he took in his paper; but would do well to heed Aurino's advice, not just because of Aurino's emotion-theory; but just because it is a well-proven way to understand things: to look at broad patterns and different perspectives, and not just narrow ones.
The strangest thing is when Dr. Dick rubbishes my defence of "honesty" and the idea of "not denying anything that exists". He himself practices exactly this, by appealing to non-contradiction (logical consistency (via maths); honesty) in his paper; and his desire not to deny the existence of any degree of freedom!
The most basic rule of science is honesty. How can you be scientific, if you keep contradicting yourself, double-defining, commit fraud and lies? So how can Dr. Dick appeal to honesty in his own paper; yet rubbish my appeal to honesty? That is the most bizzare thing I find with Dr. Dick.
If I recall right I was once rubbished by Dr. Dick for saying something like "all there is IS what there is; so you might as well face it as there isn't anything else (if there was; that would also BE).
I found it most bizarre when he claimed that my statement was so-full of assumptions and whatever that it was not even worthy of a rational argument.
If you look at what I wrote; it is clearly true by definition. How can Dr. Dick deny it? Tell me what exists that doesn't exist?
Dr. Dick apparently claims to be logical and not "religious" i.e. not emotional; yet says if it doesn't lead to fun, don't do it! Presumably, as a theoretical example: having your ideas exposed as less original than you thought, more complicated than they need to be, and riddled with fallacies, isn't fun (but perhaps it COULD be, if you made "Existence" your base, so revel in finding more reality).
Actually, having fun is a good idea- but be honest about it. Extremely honest!
Actually, if one is super-honest about having fun; the problem of the human race is solved, and death most likely is defeated! If you are super-honest about anything, same applies. Infinite honesty is a good idea!
At the end of the day, in a sense I can make no complaint against Dr. Dick; but it would be nice if he debated the real issues in his paper with more than just mainly Harv (which thankfully he has done recently). There are other people here; they may find "being treated a bit like an outlaw?" a weird experience!
Could Dr. Dick, dismiss others for being "religious" (emotional); have a different rule for himself, and contradict himself by claiming to be un-emotionally logical re: his paper; while refusing to be open-minded and rational (open to argument) towards others re: his paper (for emotional reasons)? Isn't he combining emotion with logic? Emotion is part of reality- so why not be logical about it? Allow everyone to be both emotional and logical. He acknowledges the very rationality of his paper requires that others test it (otherwise it would mean he was just being a personal witness to something others just have to believe in- a stance he rejects apparantly).
Hope I haven't offended anyone, I try to be polite.