Metaphysics is a self delusional anadyne

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You've made no point.

That's funny, because my point was that you've made no point. You just keep regurgitating the well-known conditions of solipsism, while at the same time betraying the fact that you--like everyone--rely on inference derived from empirical evidence to form your beliefs about an objective world.

You have no point.

Irony.

 

[untermensche]

You just keep regurgitating the well-known conditions of solipsism, while at the same time betraying the fact that you--like everyone--rely on inference derived from empirical evidence to form your beliefs about an objective world.

I state facts.

You are hung up on labels. A slave to labels. Enthralled by labels. Devoted to labels.

1. The mind has access only to experience.

2. The mind is that which experiences.

3. All that can be known is known by a mind.

4. A mind can only know experience.

These are facts.

Run away and hide behind some label if you like.

That which we find ourselves in is very scary.

And I believe the table is there because I experience a table.

It will never prove a table is actually there.

No amount of experiences of a table will prove the table is there.

It will never demonstrate what exactly is there.

And this is not saying that something is not there.

That is a possibility.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I believe the table is there because I experience a table.

We know. We all know. As I said, we all rely on inference derived from emperical evidence. You have stated nothing new. You have added nothing new.

 

[Grendel]

You've made no point.

You have no point.

Only faith it is behind experience.

Unter, no offence, but I think you're missing something Koy is saying.

When you say faith is behind human experience it just becomes meaningless, a platitude. Because if there is only ONE way to experience material reality then what you call it doesn't really matter, it's becomes trivial?

'We subjectively experience what we believe to be an objective world—based upon the strength of the empirical evidence that literally surrounds us at all times' (Koy)

If there is only one way to experience the world and that's the above way, then why do you say faith is behind this?

If you agree it's the only way (Koy's definition of subjective experience) then you are only arguing over a semantic difference between the words experience and faith. That's trivial, wouldn't you agree? But if you're implying there is a different way to experience the world, and that 'faith' is not a semantic alternative for 'experience', but is something that can be defined and underpins subjective experience, then that is NOT trivial at all?

So what is it you're saying, is it trivial or not? And if not-trivial then state the alternative clearly, because so far you haven't really said. Perhaps it would be helpful if you state what you mean by Faith.

 

[untermensche]

I believe the table is there because I experience a table.

We know. We all know. As I said, we all rely on inference derived from emperical evidence. You have stated nothing new. You have added nothing new.

You yammer and yammer.

And in the end you finally see I have been right all along.

Then you say the position was clear.

What a waste of time.

 

[untermensche]

You've made no point.

You have no point.

Only faith it is behind experience.

Unter, no offence, but I think you're missing something Koy is saying.

When you say faith is behind human experience it just becomes meaningless, a platitude.

That is where she is wrong.

To say we can only have faith in objects is not a platitude. It is a fact.

We can have no more.

We can believe something is there but can never prove it.

And we can never know what is there, because all we can have are experiences of the object and not the object.

All we can know is what the object appears to do. And we have taken this very deep.

We can never know what it is.

To say this inescapable situation is nothing is to not think very much.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You've made no point.

You have no point.

Only faith it is behind experience.

Unter, no offence, but I think you're missing something Koy is saying.

When you say faith is behind human experience it just becomes meaningless, a platitude.

That is where she is wrong.

Not that it should matter, but he.

To say we can only have faith in objects is not a platitude.

I believe what Grendel meant was that your endless repetition has become meaningless, (like) a platitude, because you aren’t saying anything that hasn’t already been said a thousand different ways for some five thousand years now.

What I am actually saying is that you are not making any new point and that the point you are making is of trivial importance. We must all rely on inference derived from empirical evidence due to the fact that our brains are in vats we call skulls and thus physically isolated from directly experiencing what we call the “external” world.

Thus, on a purely ontological level, since “to know” means “to directly experience” our brains can’t “know” (directly experience) anything but our skulls.

We are all aware of this. And....?

You accept that your senses are more-or-less accurately relaying the information your brain uses to parse “reality.” You also accept that it can change you—the analogue self—at any time and not parse that “reality.” Since “we” are manifestations of our brains, there is no way for us to ever independently verify what our brains/senses are imbuing us with.

And yet, we act as if every nano-second.

It’s a crapshoot. We got it.

And...?

 

[ruby sparks]

That is where she is wrong.

Not that it should matter, but he.

To say we can only have faith in objects is not a platitude.

I believe what Grendel meant was that your endless repetition has become meaningless, (like) a platitude, because you aren’t saying anything that hasn’t already been said a thousand different ways for some five thousand years now.

What I am actually saying is that you are not making any new point and that the point you are making is of trivial importance. We must all rely on inference derived from empirical evidence due to the fact that our brains are in vats we call skulls and thus physically isolated from directly experiencing what we call the “external” world.

Thus, on a purely ontological level, since “to know” means “to directly experience” our brains can’t “know” (directly experience) anything but our skulls.

We are all aware of this. And....?

His wibblings on this topic, based on how we can't know anything for sure, are merely a prelude to him knowing for sure that the mind is independent of the brain. It's basically dogmatic, logically inconsistent, contrary to evidence and one of the daftest notions on the internet and imo no one should bother interacting with him, at least on this subject. It's that simple and why I personally don't.

 

[untermensche]

That is where she is wrong.

To say we can only have faith in objects is not a platitude.

I believe what Grendel meant was that your endless repetition has become meaningless, (like) a platitude, because you aren’t saying anything that hasn’t already been said a thousand different ways for some five thousand years now....

No.

When I first said it I was opposed. Told it was nonsense.

I had to beat it into the heads of people.

Who now claim it is all so clear.

Because I did not stop when told it was a bunch of nonsense.

That some call this position solipsism shows how lost people are.

It is a position that contains the possibility for solipsism. It in no way directly leads to solipsism. Solipsism is only a possibility.

Just like life contains the possibility for happiness.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I believe what Grendel meant was that your endless repetition has become meaningless, (like) a platitude, because you aren’t saying anything that hasn’t already been said a thousand different ways for some five thousand years now....

No.

When I first said it I was opposed. Told it was nonsense.

Who told you it was "nonsense"?

That some call this position solipsism shows how lost people are.

Considering that:

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.

It's perfectly understandable as that is almost exactly word-for-word what you have been regurgitating.

It is a position that contains the possibility for solipsism.

A meaningless distinction--since it's a position that is solipsistic--unless it "contains" some other possibility as well. What are the other possibilities?

It in no way directly leads to solipsism.

In every way it directly is solipsism, at least epistemologically.

Solipsism is only a possibility. Just like life contains the possibility for happiness.

Category error, but since you always ignore those and seem incapable of comprehending what a category error entails, let's focus instead on what are the other "possibilities" your position affords?

 

[untermensche]

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist.

This is sloppy.

We do not have a mind.

We are a mind.

A body has a mind.

But we, the things communicating, are minds.

Minds that can make conclusions, form arguments, and force hands to type out the words we choose.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That some call this position solipsism shows how lost people are.

Considering that:

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.

It's perfectly understandable as that is almost exactly word-for-word what you have been regurgitating.

It seems to you are just wrong here. As far as I can tell, untermensche and I broadly have the same analysis and, like him, I don't equate my view with solipsism. I grant you that the distinction is subtle for the non-specialist but there's no doubt as to the fact. And it's not a matter of equivocating on words, there really is a difference. Like me, I don't think untermensche's view is that (A) only his own mind is sure to exist. According to this, UM's view is not solipsism (except, as he says, as a possibility).

To help you sort out the mess, please note that the rest of Wiki's explanation does apply to untermensche's view (and my own): (B) "knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind".

The two bits, A and B, are not equivalent. And I believe that A doesn't apply to UM's view, while B does, at least as far as I understand his position but what he says here does confirm this.
EB

EDIT
In effect, we have A → B but not B → A. So, you can hold that B is true without necessarily holding that A is true.

Also, the difference between us is that untermensche's view is naive, i.e. he can't explain himself, which is why he keeps repeating again and again the same things, essentially a few trite ideas, and why he can't debate properly with other posters, as you will have noticed.

 

[untermensche]

Even if we say the position is described by the label "solipsism", so what?

Nothing changes.

The object does not become less a matter of faith.

The object is not known.

A representation is known. Something is experienced by a mind.

The object is not in the mind.

Even if the object is out there we are not experiencing it and cannot experience it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Even if we say the position is described by the label "solipsism", so what?

So, again, it's nothing new. You have not brought anything new to the centuries-old table.

Due to a consequence of our physical construction and the phenomenon of "self-awareness," we--the generated self--all rely on inference derived from empirical evidence to form beliefs of an objective universe; beliefs that we act upon every second of every day such that they are as good as properly basic beliefs and are based on the shear volume of empirical evidence literally experienced (if indirectly) in a nearly infinite manner at every nano-second of our existence combined with billions of recorded examples spanning thousands of years of human history.

And...?

We can't pedantically prove anything to a 100% degree of certainty. Nor do we have to. Utility suffices for us to successfully navigate and interact with an assumed objective reality, so your regurgitation of solipsism, while "true" is still, nevertheless, of trivial importance.

In short and forever the only response anything you have posted really requires is a, "Yes. AND....!?" Or, probably more like, "Sure. AND....!?"

Again, YOU don't even act on any of the tautologies you regurgitate. Recall this gem you previously ignored:

I am saying...that it is unlikely the subjective exists without something objective as the cause.

Unpack "unlikely" if not inference derived from empirical evidence.

Nothing. New.

 

[untermensche]

Unpack "unlikely" if not inference derived from empirical evidence.

It is derived from the idea that nothing can not lead to something.

The act of experiencing is something. The experience of a dream is something in itself. It is not empirical evidence of something.

The act of experiencing is not empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence is something we call a subset of experience.

 

[Grendel]

The experience of a dream is something in itself. It is not empirical evidence of something.
.

Unter

You cannot have a thought, or a dream, without physical events occurring. There is no thought or mind or awareness without an entire electrical network physically moving electrons around the hardwire neuron network of the brain.

Before, before, you can have a thought a hardware network (physical) has to fire a neuron(s). (The neurons firing are the thought) A physical objective event always occurs prior and in conjunction what you're calling a thought. There is no such thing as software. There is only software attached to hardware.

Where do you think the 'thought' exists if not in the physical brain?

Also, there is proof. Subjectivity, in the collective, becomes statistically objective. Meaning if enough people experience the same event and all the subjective views tally .. then the possibility of the event not being objective becomes statistically unlikely. For example, I'm sure you're not going to say Einstein's theory of Relativity is only a subjective view, dependent upon each person's experience. Because it's the same for every observer.

Physicists already understand the point you're making. It's not something new, or not understood. They have developed peer reviews, and most importantly .. 5 sigma proof. I think you should research 5 sigma proof and you will understand the methods Science has devised for overcoming individual subjectivity.

Because you are solipsistic and you really can't deny that you need to think about where it leads you. It's a false ideal to hold onto.

Greg

 

[Grendel]

There is only a physical Universe. There are only two things that exist, Matter and Motion. These two are interchangeable, because they are conserved.

Here's a new take on consciousness


Could Consciousness all come down to just motion?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist.

This is sloppy.

We do not have a mind.

We are a mind.

A body has a mind.

But we, the things communicating, are minds.

Minds that can make conclusions, form arguments, and force hands to type out the words we choose.

Solipsism is great. Everybody should try it

 

[fromderinside]

Solipsism ....... everybody ....... ahah, ahah, ahah .... sigh.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Unpack "unlikely" if not inference derived from empirical evidence.

It is derived from the idea that nothing can not lead to something.

Which in turn is based upon?

The experience of a dream is something in itself. It is not empirical evidence of something.

It is empirical evidence that humans dream and all that it entails (i.e., REM; certain brain activity; nature of the constructed self and how it is imbued with information; etc).

The act of experiencing is not empirical evidence.

It is empirical evidence of the act of experiencing.

Empirical evidence is something we call a subset of experience.

You really have a problem with categories.