A Little Thought About Truth

[untermensche]

If the "world", "universe", "everything" is out there and has existence then no agency beyond the agency of the individual mind is required to think so.

Well, once you've assumed the existence of this whole gigantic universe, without even attempting to explain at all how come it just exists then, sure, all you need is to believe your own gigantic assumption. I accept you can do that. I'm sure you can do it.

What's assumed is that what is entirely apparent is not some trick, not an illusion.

Because it is absurd to assume it is a trick.

A trick would require massive external agency.

While assuming it is not a trick requires none.

If all is some creation then agency is required to produce the illusion. Massive external agency is required.

That's what I asked you to justify but you just keep repeating yourself. Repeat is not a very convincing argument.

Once you refute it I may have to change it, but you don't even seem to comprehend it.

If the external world is some created illusion then that implies some external agency creating the illusion.

An absurd thought since it is the imposition of unneeded agency in the complete absence of evidence of external agency.

Obviously, once you've described the illusion as a "creation" it seems agency is required but why would you say it has to be a creation when you've just shown you are prepared to accept that this whole gigantic universe that's supposed to sit out there is no creation and therefore doesn't require agency?

For something to be an illusion that implies an agency behind it. An illusionist. Something generating the illusion.

If things just are as they are then no external agency is implied.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Well, once you've assumed the existence of this whole gigantic universe, without even attempting to explain at all how come it just exists then, sure, all you need is to believe your own gigantic assumption. I accept you can do that. I'm sure you can do it.

What's assumed is that what is entirely apparent is not some trick, not an illusion.

Because it is absurd to assume it is a trick.

A trick would require massive external agency.

While assuming it is not a trick requires none.

If all is some creation then agency is required to produce the illusion. Massive external agency is required.

That's what I asked you to justify but you just keep repeating yourself. Repeat is not a very convincing argument.

Once you refute it I may have to change it, but you don't even seem to comprehend it.

If the external world is some created illusion then that implies some external agency creating the illusion.

An absurd thought since it is the imposition of unneeded agency in the complete absence of evidence of external agency.

Obviously, once you've described the illusion as a "creation" it seems agency is required but why would you say it has to be a creation when you've just shown you are prepared to accept that this whole gigantic universe that's supposed to sit out there is no creation and therefore doesn't require agency?

For something to be an illusion that implies an agency behind it. An illusionist. Something generating the illusion.

If things just are as they are then no external agency is implied.

Oh, it's the word "illusion" that has you all in a tangle. Ok, make it "delusion". There, no agency required, except that of the subject himself.
Problem solved.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Oh, it's the word "illusion" that has you all in a tangle. Ok, make it "delusion". There, no agency required, except that of the subject himself.
Problem solved.
EB

You offer no argument to assume anything is a delusion.

There is no reason to merely assume it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Oh, it's the word "illusion" that has you all in a tangle. Ok, make it "delusion". There, no agency required, except that of the subject himself.
Problem solved.
EB

You offer no argument to assume anything is a delusion.

There is no reason to merely assume it.

So I conclude that there's no justification for your claim that it is illogical.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

After thirty odd posts one comes to wonder which is fly and which is fly paper.

 

[Speakpigeon]

No. It took us only a few posts to agree that we disagreed terminally until such a time as the other guy sees the light.

So, basically, you are the fly on the wall and you can't make head or tail?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

-nm

Oh shit. I just responded.

 

[untermensche]

You offer no argument to assume anything is a delusion.

There is no reason to merely assume it.

So I conclude that there's no justification for your claim that it is illogical.
EB

You have your own ideas about parsimony.

But if there are two choices and one does not require outside agency and one requires all kinds of outside agency.

And we have NO evidence of outside agency.

Then one choice clearly is a violation of parsimony and is illogical.

You have provided nothing to dispute this.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So I conclude that there's no justification for your claim that it is illogical.
EB

You have your own ideas about parsimony.

No I think parsimony is good but it's not the means to all ends. Well, you have to be parsimonious in your use of parsimony, that's all.

But if there are two choices and one does not require outside agency and one requires all kinds of outside agency.

And we have NO evidence of outside agency.

Then one choice clearly is a violation of parsimony and is illogical.

Ok it would be a violation of parsimony if it required outside agency for which there's no evidence but the thing is, my view, as already stated here, doesn't require outside agency. You made up a strawman using the word "illusion" with a deviously hidden meaning of necessitating outside agency so I suggested "delusion" instead with the added specification of not necessitating any outside agency but still you go on about outside agency. If there is any outside agency it's you and there's nothing I could do about it.

I still don't understand what you mean here by "illogical". You seem to have your own ideas about illogicality.

You have provided nothing to dispute this.

Nothing perhaps you can understand but I certainly provided enough for most people to understand.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You have your own ideas about parsimony.

No I think parsimony is good but it's not the means to all ends. Well, you have to be parsimonious in your use of parsimony, that's all.

But if there are two choices and one does not require outside agency and one requires all kinds of outside agency.

And we have NO evidence of outside agency.

Then one choice clearly is a violation of parsimony and is illogical.

Ok it would be a violation of parsimony if it required outside agency for which there's no evidence but the thing is, my view, as already stated here, doesn't require outside agency. You made up a strawman using the word "illusion" with a deviously hidden meaning of necessitating outside agency so I suggested "delusion" instead with the added specification of not necessitating any outside agency but still you go on about outside agency. If there is any outside agency it's you and there's nothing I could do about it.

I still don't understand what you mean here by "illogical". You seem to have your own ideas about illogicality.

You have provided nothing to dispute this.

Nothing perhaps you can understand but I certainly provided enough for most people to understand.
EB

There is no argument here.

Show me how the tea cup can be an illusion without something constructing that illusion?

How do you have illusion without agency?

 

[Speakpigeon]

There is no argument here.

Show me how the tea cup can be an illusion without something constructing that illusion?

How do you have illusion without agency?

Maybe you can't depending on how you define an illusion but at this point if illusion there is it's entirely yours.
EB

 

[untermensche]

There is no argument here.

Show me how the tea cup can be an illusion without something constructing that illusion?

How do you have illusion without agency?

Maybe you can't depending on how you define an illusion but at this point if illusion there is it's entirely yours.
EB

Illusion is defined as much as it can be.

If I say I am holding an apple and you say I am not then you are saying the apple is an illusion. What the apple actually is in fact is then immaterial. It is an illusion to me, according to your claim.

And if it is, then some agency is necessary for it to be an illusion.

Some agency deliberately constructing apples for me to perceive.

 

[Juma]

Maybe you can't depending on how you define an illusion but at this point if illusion there is it's entirely yours.
EB

Illusion is defined as much as it can be.

If I say I am holding an apple and you say I am not then you are saying the apple is an illusion. What the apple actually is in fact is then immaterial. It is an illusion to me, according to your claim.

And if it is, then some agency is necessary for it to be an illusion.

Some agency deliberately constructing apples for me to perceive.

That agency is you. (Your brain).

 

[untermensche]

Illusion is defined as much as it can be.

If I say I am holding an apple and you say I am not then you are saying the apple is an illusion. What the apple actually is in fact is then immaterial. It is an illusion to me, according to your claim.

And if it is, then some agency is necessary for it to be an illusion.

Some agency deliberately constructing apples for me to perceive.

That agency is you. (Your brain).

In some ways my brain is creating an illusion.

In others it is creating a representation of something out there.

An illusion means there is nothing that corresponds to the representation.

So color is an illusion but shape is not.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That agency is you. (Your brain).

In some ways my brain is creating an illusion.

How would you know there's brain in the first place?

In others it is creating a representation of something out there.

An illusion means there is nothing that corresponds to the representation.

So color is an illusion but shape is not.

Strange. How come?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Maybe you can't depending on how you define an illusion but at this point if illusion there is it's entirely yours.
EB

Illusion is defined as much as it can be.

If I say I am holding an apple and you say I am not then you are saying the apple is an illusion. What the apple actually is in fact is then immaterial. It is an illusion to me, according to your claim.

Irrelevant. We were not talking of apples and pears but of the whole material world.

And if it is, then some agency is necessary for it to be an illusion.

We we're talking about "delusion". I let go of the term "illusion" way back when I realised you conceived of it as necessitating an outside agency.

Some agency deliberately constructing apples for me to perceive.

And now you keep going regardless.
EB

 

[untermensche]

We we're talking about "delusion". I let go of the term "illusion" way back when I realised you conceived of it as necessitating an outside agency.

If you think it is just a delusion that you need food, try going without it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

We we're talking about "delusion". I let go of the term "illusion" way back when I realised you conceived of it as necessitating an outside agency.

If you think it is just a delusion that you need food, try going without it.

Never mind.
EB