IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 24th February 2021, 05:55 AM   #201
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
But why is that the point? What is the purpose of that being the point? Why should I consider that point in particular? Isn't it better to just assume that it's real and find out how it works? What do I gain by being unsure?
ALL OF THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED MULTIPLE TIMES. Can you just look at previous posts? You probably don't even need to switch pages.
Rystiya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 05:57 AM   #202
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Sure, my conclusions about what underlies those patterns may be wrong. The principle of parsimony can help us to compare different explanations for what causes those patterns, but it's clear that something exists.

I don't really understand how my experiences could be just a movie, given that I can interact with them. Myriad brought up "the experience of thirst" and "the experience of drinking water", and the connection between them. How could a movie explain that connection? Are you positing that it's just a coincidence that if I don't have the experience of drinking water for a few hours I'll have the experience of thirst, or that when having the experience of thirst if I then have the experience of the drinking water, the experience of thirst will dissipate?
Yes, it can. Perhaps all their thoughts, movements, etc, are just predetermined contents of that movie. Your mind and body don't actually have any control of them, because they are like movie characters.
Rystiya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 05:59 AM   #203
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Sure, you can't be absolutely sure.

But applying Bayesian reasoning to the problem, the probability that the universe isn't real is vanishingly small.

Given that we don't have complete knowledge, nothing has a probability of 1. That's not a particularly deep statement.
Yes, That's not a particularly deep statement. That's why I almost take this idea almost for granted, only spent a few sentences to make it clear. I can't understand why so many people are unhappy with it.
Rystiya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 05:59 AM   #204
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,713
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
I disagree that materialism predicts that an orange (reality) has texture, in fact, to be consistant with materialism, an 'orange' as a complete seperate object does not exist except as a construct of the brain. All that exists are measurable quantities such as mass, frequency and position, etc. The boundaries (0bjects of experience such as trees, chairs) we percieve do not exist in reality (according to materialism) Note: when we refer to reality under materialism there are no observers - we can not suggest that 'things' are just as or similar as we experience. There are only numerical quantities.
What nonsense.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 06:00 AM   #205
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,713
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
The patterns of experiences are real, but that does not mean your conclusions on them are real, accurate or conprehensive. Say, if all your experiences are just a movie, then while all the patterns in your experiences are real, all your understandings about this universe are wrong because there is no universe.

I think all you have done is reinterpeting a question which I have already answered before.
Where does your movie exist then?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 06:02 AM   #206
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, mebe...

Descartes was looking to find something he could not doubt and that was himself as a thinking being. All that other stuff is ontology that you need to pay for. Descartes wrote a lot of bum cheques himself to get God and the universe so knock yourself out.
My point is 'can't be 100% sure', and those 'perhaps' are just examples which help make this clear. Not sure why you don't like them.

I don't agree with Descartes, nor do I intend to do the same job (you will be wrong if you think I do). I don't understand why you think he has anything to do with me.
Rystiya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 06:03 AM   #207
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,713
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
'you rejecting the answers that we've discovered by science' I never did that. Don't bother to clearify that again, I already made it clear many times.

How can anyone possibly prove that you have experiences? You just "HAVE" experiences, you feel them at every single moment, and there is no proof. How many times have I told you that? If you insist that you do not experience painful experiences when you get hurt, only your hurt body is real, then fine, I don't want to waste time trying to convince you. That is the last time I explain this to you. I've run out of patience. …snip…
There are many different states I can be in which means I don’t “feel” any experiences.

For example one I mentioned earlier - under a general anaesthetic.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 06:11 AM   #208
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
I am not interested in words like "materialism". Though it does not matter what philosophers or anyone else calls any such belief. However just checking in Wikipedia, it defines "materialism" like this -


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

... all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist.

Materialism is closely related to*physicalism—the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the theories of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter (e.g.*spacetime,*physical energies*and*forces, and*dark matter). Thus, the term*physicalism*is preferred over*materialism*by some, while others use the terms as if they were*synonymous.


That just says what science would say about it (and it's the same as I've said here). Ie – the object (your orange) does of course exist, and the things that do not really exist are your so-called “experiences” “consciousness” “thoughts” … those are said (according to the above) to be merely “epiphenomena”, ie something that we create in our minds as views or pictures etc. as our mental representation of the real objects that do exist, such as your orange.

But in what you write above, you are once again (as you have been in most of your previous posts on this site) straight back into solipsism and the claim that no external reality exists … which people here have put to you countless times, and which you have then denied and said that you accept reality as existing, but then you proceed to write something entirely Solipsist such as the above “ … objects of experience such as trees, chairs) we perceive do not exist in reality (according to materialism”

… if you want to believe something as absurdly silly as saying that reality does not exist then that is a matter for you, but in that case you need to produce a proof for that claim …

… please prove that reality does not exist (eg your orange does not actually exist).

HOW MANY TIMES did I told you I'm not preaching the idea that 'no external reality exists'? You have been refuting something I'm not trying to defend, can't you realize how annoying it is?

If “experiences” “consciousness” “thoughts” don't exist, as you have said, then you have no pain when you get hurt, and you have no joy when fall in love. You only have electric and chemical signals in your brain. I can't prove that you have experiences, you can believe all of these if you are happy with them.

Don't tell me scientists are on your side. I believe scientists are smart enough to know what they don't know.
Rystiya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 06:12 AM   #209
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,713
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
HOW MANY TIMES did I told you I'm not preaching the idea that 'no external reality exists'? You have been refuting something I'm not trying to defend, can't you realize how annoying it is?

If “experiences” “consciousness” “thoughts” don't exist, as you have said, then you have no pain when you get hurt, and you have no joy when fall in love. You only have electric and chemical signals in your brain. I can't prove that you have experiences, you can believe all of these if you are happy with them.

Don't tell me scientists are on your side. I believe scientists are smart enough to know what they don't know.
He hasn’t said that…..
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 06:15 AM   #210
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 24,440
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
My point is 'can't be 100% sure', and those 'perhaps' are just examples which help make this clear. Not sure why you don't like them.

I don't agree with Descartes, nor do I intend to do the same job (you will be wrong if you think I do). I don't understand why you think he has anything to do with me.
I don’t “like” them because I have no reason to believe any of these unfalsifiable ideas are true.
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 06:15 AM   #211
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
He hasn’t said that…..
"and the things that do not really exist are your so-called “experiences” “consciousness” “thoughts”', he said this.
Rystiya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 06:18 AM   #212
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
I don’t “like” them because I have no reason to believe any of these unfalsifiable ideas are true.
I don't like those 'absolute truth' either. However, I do believe that even if everything else is unreal, there is still concurrent experiences.

Last edited by Rystiya; 24th February 2021 at 06:21 AM.
Rystiya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 06:26 AM   #213
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,713
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
"and the things that do not really exist are your so-called “experiences” “consciousness” “thoughts”', he said this.
No he didn’t.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 06:30 AM   #214
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 24,440
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
I don't like those 'absolute truth' either. However, I do believe that even if everything else is unreal, there is still concurrent experiences.
I am not sure you get to talk about real and unreal at the metaphysical level you are. Descartes/Avicenna‘s appeals to our natural sense of a subject-object distinction is leading you down the garden path. You are already in and part of this world you are trying to examine.
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 07:33 AM   #215
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
HOW MANY TIMES did I told you I'm not preaching the idea that 'no external reality exists'? You have been refuting something I'm not trying to defend, can't you realize how annoying it is?

If “experiences” “consciousness” “thoughts” don't exist, as you have said, then you have no pain when you get hurt, and you have no joy when fall in love. You only have electric and chemical signals in your brain. I can't prove that you have experiences, you can believe all of these if you are happy with them.

Don't tell me scientists are on your side. I believe scientists are smart enough to know what they don't know.

I did not say that "experiences" or "consciousness" don't exist. You need to read that above post more carefully.

Well, scientists are mostly on my side, simply because I am taking their side! ... I am accepting the scientific position on these issues. That is :- I'm accepting that science is likley to be closer to a corect answer, as opposed to (say) philosophy which has really never discovered or accurately explained anything.

And as for saying "I believe scientists are smart enough to know what they don't know" ... as I have explained to you a dozen times or more - most scientists in genuine core research (eg physics, chemistry, most of biology and most of maths), if they being serious, would agree that they cannot claim to absolutely "know" (ie as 100% certain fact) anything. Though they have a pretty good idea ... in fact, as a subject (ie science); by far the best record of reliable accurate explanations.

Last edited by IanS; 24th February 2021 at 09:28 AM.
IanS is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 08:44 AM   #216
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
… if you want to believe something as absurdly silly as saying that reality does not exist then that is a matter for you, but in that case you need to produce a proof for that claim …

… please prove that reality does not exist (eg your orange does not actually exist).
Now you are being silly - one can't prove that something does not exist.

I am not claiming that matter does not exist, however, making the distinction this orange or that orange, or, an orange, or, a molecule, a galaxy, the moon, etc. - - matter can not make distinctions, observers make distinctions.
All that exists are numerical quantities such as charge, spin, frequency, mass, etc. Oranges, moons, etc. require an observer.
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 09:05 AM   #217
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,713
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
Now you are being silly - one can't prove that something does not exist.

I am not claiming that matter does not exist, however, making the distinction this orange or that orange, or, an orange, or, a molecule, a galaxy, the moon, etc. - - matter can not make distinctions, observers make distinctions.
All that exists are numerical quantities such as charge, spin, frequency, mass, etc. Oranges, moons, etc. require an observer.
Nope.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 09:35 AM   #218
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Nope.
We've now reached the point where physicalism, the belief in the abstraction called matter, has become a full-fledged religion, with a deity called 'Matter'
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 09:38 AM   #219
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,713
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
We've now reached the point where physicalism, the belief in the abstraction called matter, has become a full-fledged religion, with a deity called 'Matter'
And yet again nope.

I’m not even a materialist!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:53 AM   #220
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
Now you are being silly - one can't prove that something does not exist.

I am not claiming that matter does not exist, however, making the distinction this orange or that orange, or, an orange, or, a molecule, a galaxy, the moon, etc. - - matter can not make distinctions, observers make distinctions.
All that exists are numerical quantities such as charge, spin, frequency, mass, etc. Oranges, moons, etc. require an observer.

Well, Larry ... you actually did not quote the post or yours that you are apparently now responding to, and in particular you did not reproduce what you had just said about things not actually existing. Here is the post that you did not see fit to quote/repeat, with the relevant claim highlighted -


Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
I disagree that materialism predicts that an orange (reality) has texture, in fact, to be consistant with materialism, an 'orange' as a complete seperate object does not exist except as a construct of the brain. All that exists are measurable quantities such as mass, frequency and position, etc. The boundaries (0bjects of experience such as trees, chairs) we percieve do not exist in reality (according to materialism) Note: when we refer to reality under materialism there are no observers - we can not suggest that 'things' are just as or similar as we experience. There are only numerical quantities.

I think you presented that (e.g. the highlighted parts) to say that you agreed with it? Did you say those things because you did NOT agree with it? Because that reads to me as if you are saying you do think the "trees, chairs, oranges ... do not exist in reality" ... do you mean that?

Because if you are indeed making that claim (and you have no words of caution there, such as saying "perhaps" they do not exist), then you DO need a proof if you make claims like that.

Alternatively, can you produce a proof of what you also just claimed in the above where you say "all that exists are numerical quantities such as charge, spin, frequency, mass, etc. Oranges, moons, etc. require an observer"?

Can you provide the proof to show none of those things exist without a (human?) "observer?

Afaik, those objects still exist, whether we observe them or not. It does not matter if we use the word "orange" to describe what we sense as something we call "colour" ... we could just as easily invent some other word to mean the same thing as the colour "orange", but that would not change the "fact" that the thing is still an "orange colour" etc.

If you want to say an orange (or whatever) is actually composed of sub-atomic energy fields with various different quite specific types of disturbance patterns (ie various "particles"), then that's fine. BUT ... when all those trillions of trillions of zillions of such fields/particles are agregated together to form a distinct mass/object such as an orange, then that object (the orange) exists as that very specific mass/object (regardless of how many "particles/field-disturbances" it's composed of) ...

... what we, on a human scale detect, is that vast mass/array of particles that forms each individual different object such as an ornage or a tree or the moon etc. At least, that's the way science has discovered it to be and explained it. And as I said above, I see no reason take any philosophical argument instead of the science.
IanS is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 12:13 PM   #221
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,614
Rystiya, why do you require 100% certainty to grant that the world exists, but do not require 100% certainly to grant that other people have experiences like yours?

There's nothing terribly wrong with starting with a requirement of 100% certainly just to see where it leads you. But if you do that honestly, where it leads you to is solipsism. You are 100% certain of your own experiences, and nothing else. You are not certain of the existence of other people or their experiences.

Instead, you start making little exceptions to the 100% certainty standard here and there, as you've done. Once you make even one such exception, you can no longer rule out realms of likely possibility by playing the "nope, not 100% certain" card.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 03:08 PM   #222
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 70,919
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
ALL OF THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED MULTIPLE TIMES. Can you just look at previous posts? You probably don't even need to switch pages.
Your previous posts have not answered my question. Not even remotely. All you've given me in response is "what if?"

But okay, let's play. Let's grant that all I can know is my experience. What follows?
__________________
Semantic ambiguity is how vampires get you.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 03:35 PM   #223
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 24,440
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
I don't like those 'absolute truth' either. However, I do believe that even if everything else is unreal, there is still concurrent experiences.
Here you talk like a phenomenologist (Husserl) but that approach will ignore the metaphysics you have been entertaining.

Hume, logical positivism as well.

Last edited by Sideroxylon; 24th February 2021 at 03:36 PM.
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 02:10 AM   #224
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
I don't like those 'absolute truth' either. However, I do believe that even if everything else is unreal, there is still concurrent experiences.

But on what basis are you doubting that "everything else is unreal"? What is the evidence for that?

You seem to be saying that just because science cannot actually prove that reality exists (where neither science nor anything else can actually "prove" things, anything! ... and where, if science cannot achieve such things, then other "ways of knowing" such as philosophy "certainly" cannot, or at least not according to their record up until now which has shown precisely zero ability to detect or properly explain anything) ... so on what basis are you not accepting that science is right to treat the world as real?

I described to you before (many times) certain aspect of QM, and it's true that various aspects of QM do still seem deeply mysterious (most of that remaining mystery is concerned with the so-called Double Slit experiment and properties such as Quantum Entanglement … I can recommend several good laymans-level books on that, if you want to understand more about that) ... BUT those mysterious complications arise mostly in experiments using single particles such as a proton or electron (though, actually, similar results have more recently been reported with complete atoms) ... so I am well aware that there is something fundamental that needs an explanation there, and of course that is a very active area of current research within mathematical physics. However, we do not observe those mysterious effects on the scale of our everyday human life ... and that seems to be, as I explained earlier, because on our vastly more macroscopic scale (trillions of trillions of times larger and trillions of trillions of times slower) we are always confined to interacting with vast enormous condensed masses of those particles, ie in what we detect as material objects all around us.

So why, when science describes in excruciating vast detail & shows with the most cutting edge quantum maths, that those huge masses of particles which we call material objects, do exist, and that they exist more-or-less as we and all of science detects & describes them, why are you refusing to accept that ... on what basis are you doubting that none of that exists at all?
IanS is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 06:45 AM   #225
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Edit for the post above -

- that first line should say

" But on what basis are you doubting to say that “everything else is unreal” ? What is the evidence for such non-reality? "
IanS is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 09:54 AM   #226
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by IanS View Post

... what we, on a human scale detect, is that vast mass/array of particles that forms each individual different object such as an ornage or a tree or the moon etc. At least, that's the way science has discovered it to be and explained it. And as I said above, I see no reason take any philosophical argument instead of the science.
An orange, moon, molecule - these are distinctions. Matter can not make distinctions - just like your inert morning oatmeal can not distinguish a raisin.
What we experience as a raisin is a distinction - we 'create' the raisin from numerical quantities such as charge, spin, frequency, etc. - - - at least this is the going theory. A creature (an observer) with a different nervous system might make a completely different set of distinctions.
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 11:45 AM   #227
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
An orange, moon, molecule - these are distinctions. Matter can not make distinctions - just like your inert morning oatmeal can not distinguish a raisin.
What we experience as a raisin is a distinction - we 'create' the raisin from numerical quantities such as charge, spin, frequency, etc. - - - at least this is the going theory. A creature (an observer) with a different nervous system might make a completely different set of distinctions.

OK, so now you have a whole heap more assertions of absolute certainty, all of which you need to provide proofs for -

1 How do you know that the "raisin" only exists when created in your mind? You need to prove that the raisin has no independent existence ... please produce your proof ...

... the proof please!

Afaik, all of science completely disagrees with you, and instead gives the very obvious explanation, which matches all known evidence. Namely that all that your mind/brain/consciousness is doing is re-creating a mental image or impression of real objects which of course do exist external to you and your brain ... raisin, orange, tree, moon (your examples). What is the evidential basis for you denying that?

2 A creature with a different nervous system, or more likely a different sensory system and different brain (and that means all 100-zillion of other living creatures past & present) almost certainly would form a different image or perception of various external objects ... But (a) that is because all those zillions of other animals have a less sophisticated and far less capable or accurate system for brain function, and (b) just because a modern day dog, or an ancient Iguanodon cannot form such a detailed precise mental image of the said "raisin, orange, tree, moon" that says absolutely nothing at all to show that those external objects don't actually exist ...

... all of science regards the external world as almost certainly existing, and almost certainly also in a form very close indeed to the way we perceive those objects and events ... so on what basis are you rejecting the science and coming up with your own claims using a completely failed obsolete subject like philosophy?

... why do you think that you know better than the whole of published science?

... why haven't you published a research paper in the real science journals showing how the world detected and described by science is all imaginary? You would get a Noble prize for doing that ... where is your Noble Prize??
IanS is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 12:32 PM   #228
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,614
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
An orange, moon, molecule - these are distinctions. Matter can not make distinctions - just like your inert morning oatmeal can not distinguish a raisin.
What we experience as a raisin is a distinction - we 'create' the raisin from numerical quantities such as charge, spin, frequency, etc. - - - at least this is the going theory. A creature (an observer) with a different nervous system might make a completely different set of distinctions.

I don't think this can be true, not to the extent you claim. An alien with different sensory systems (or instruments) could perceive the raisin in different ways—such as, as a statistical clustering within a certain volume of a particular ratio of elements, or as a region high in certain molecules (such as sucrose, or proteins specifically associated with the plant tissue of the seed body of the grape vine), or as a clustering of particles with timelines that all extend back to a specific roughly spherical 2cm diameter region of a vineyard several months ago. But in all those cases, the alien would still be able to distinguish what we call the raisin from, for example, the surrounding bran.

This might not be true in all cases. The raisin might be too small for the sensory resolution of an alien with a vastly larger spatial scale, or too short-lived for one with a vastly slower time scale, or too similar to the bran for one whose senses are inadequate for the task of telling one kind of organic molecule from another. And a given alien may or may not care to give the distinction any attention even if able to perceive it. You yourself might not distinguish the raisin from the surrounding bran or the other raisins, if you're in a hurry to finish your breakfast. But those are all circumstantial limitations, not fundamental ones. They aren't cause to question the raisin's existence.

Allow me to introduce an exceptional being to the argument, whom I name the OMNI, for Omniscient Mereological Nihilist Individual. The OMNI possesses all information about the state of every quantum field or particle in the universe, but does not care about or acknowledge any structure or combination or concatenation of those fundamental objects on any larger scale. The OMNI can observe each individual molecule of the raisin as it gets acted upon by enzymes and solvents as most of them (and eventually all of them) get dispersed away, without ever recognizing a raisin, or your digestive system, or you as an organism. The OMNI is never lacking any explanation of anything within its perception. It doesn't model the universe in its mind because it doesn't need to. Where we calculate "the Earth's" "orbit" around "the sun" as a consequence of "Earth's gravity" and "the Sun's gravity," the OMNI just observes a vast number of particles each individually acting on the forces presented it by other particles near (acting via e.g. electromagnetic forces) and far (acting via e.g. gravity) and so carrying on in their respective courses.

Of course, the OMNI needs an enormous amount of computational power to do this, much vaster than our little brains. What we need, to manage some portion of the OMNI's task with much less computational power, are things like perception and intelligence. The OMNI doesn't need and doesn't exhibit any intelligence, which is why that final "I" cannot stand for "intelligence" without self-contradiction. Of course, "individual" is also a self-contradiction, as I'm sure you've spotted.

(Contradictions aside, though, the OMNI works pretty well as a description of the universe itself.)

Does the fact that the OMNI does not perceive the raisin mean the raisin doesn't exist? No more than that fact that a blind man does not perceive the stars mean the stars don't exist. In the end what the OMNI does and does not know is not my concern. What other minds do and do not know matters more.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 12:38 PM   #229
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,713
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
An orange, moon, molecule - these are distinctions. Matter can not make distinctions - just like your inert morning oatmeal can not distinguish a raisin.
What we experience as a raisin is a distinction - we 'create' the raisin from numerical quantities such as charge, spin, frequency, etc. - - - at least this is the going theory. A creature (an observer) with a different nervous system might make a completely different set of distinctions.
No it isn’t. You are mistaking the map for the territory.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 01:03 PM   #230
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by IanS View Post

1 How do you know that the "raisin" only exists when created in your mind? You need to prove that the raisin has no independent existence ... please produce your proof ...

... the proof please!
the 'proof' in baked into physicalism which states all that is real are numerical quantities . . . a 'raisin' requires an observer to make that distinction. You'd have to prove the raisin exists independent of our being aware of it . . . which is impossible.
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 01:03 PM   #231
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No it isn’t. You are mistaking the map for the territory.
this is the mistake Ian and others are making. What we experience is the map, and assuming the map = the territory is the mistake.

Last edited by LarryS; 25th February 2021 at 01:12 PM.
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 01:11 PM   #232
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,713
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
this is the mistake Ian and others are making.
Nope when you say “ we 'create' the raisin from numerical quantities such as charge, spin, frequency, etc. - - - at least this is the going theory” that is incorrect.

The current theory is we can explain “Stuff” by a model we’ve called “Quantum Something”, it’s quantum “something” as we’ve had to update the model quite a few times so it matches our observations.

That model is not meant to be the universe, there aren’t “numeric quantities” floating around. Those are part of the model, not part of Stuff. The model helps us make predictions about what we could find where we haven’t looked before. If we find that when we look it matches what the model predicted then we know the model is accurately* modelling that aspect of Stuff.



*Depending on the scale and detail chosen
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 01:33 PM   #233
jrhowell
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida
Posts: 714
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
An orange, moon, molecule - these are distinctions. Matter can not make distinctions - just like your inert morning oatmeal can not distinguish a raisin.
My iPhone can make a distinction between my face and some else's.
jrhowell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 01:46 PM   #234
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
My iPhone can make a distinction between my face and some else's.
Exactly my point, your iPhone is a proxy observer
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 01:51 PM   #235
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
the 'proof' in baked into physicalism which states all that is real are numerical quantities . . . a 'raisin' requires an observer to make that distinction. You'd have to prove the raisin exists independent of our being aware of it . . . which is impossible.

I don't have to prove any such thing. Because unlike you. I am not making sweeping claims of absolute certainty. All I say about your raisin is that I accept the scientific view that we can detect a macroscopic object, and as far as we can tell, it exists whether we are there to observe it or not.

You on the other hand, in stark contrast, appear to be claiming that the raisin has no actual existence until a human being "observes" it (and even then, you apparently think or claim that the observation is an illusion of something that has no actual existence).

I think what you are doing is overlooking the "fact" that the object (a raisin) is not just a number of atoms with various quantum/other properties. It's actually (as far as anyone can honestly tell) a vast array of those various atoms and molecules all bound together by various attractive inter-particle forces, to make up a relatively massive structure that is what we call a "raisin" ... it's a huge bound aggregate of all of it's substructure ... what our eyes and other human senses can detect is only that sort of huge macroscopic structure ... we don't "see" the individual atoms (too small for our type of eyes) ... but that total massive group structure still exists ...

... I think that's probably your conceptual mistake here - you are completely overlooking or forgetting that the atoms and molecules (subatomic fields with spin and charge etc.) are bound together in a vast aggregate to form a vastly bigger structure which is macroscopic and visible to us on our human sensory scale ...

... the object (e.g. your raisin) is there, it is real, and does exist (afa we can tell))... it's simply a vastly bigger structure made-up from zillions of minute "atomic particles".

Last edited by IanS; 25th February 2021 at 01:54 PM.
IanS is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 01:55 PM   #236
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Nope when you say “ we 'create' the raisin from numerical quantities such as charge, spin, frequency, etc. - - - at least this is the going theory” that is incorrect.

The current theory is we can explain “Stuff” by a model we’ve called “Quantum Something”, it’s quantum “something” as we’ve had to update the model quite a few times so it matches our observations.

That model is not meant to be the universe, there aren’t “numeric quantities” floating around. Those are part of the model, not part of Stuff. The model helps us make predictions about what we could find where we haven’t looked before. If we find that when we look it matches what the model predicted then we know the model is accurately* modelling that aspect of Stuff.



*Depending on the scale and detail chosen
Yes an ‘orange’ is a model, a molecule is a model. The mistake is taking the model as reality
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 01:58 PM   #237
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,713
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
Yes an ‘orange’ is a model, a molecule is a model. The mistake is taking the model as reality
Which is not a mistake Ian etc. were making, you had the wrong end of the stick.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 02:38 PM   #238
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,574
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No it isn’t. You are mistaking the map for the territory.
Ah. A fellow follower of General SemanticsWP.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 02:41 PM   #239
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,713
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
Ah. A fellow follower of General SemanticsWP.
Big reader of “golden era” American science fiction, they loved it. A E van Vogt used it a lot, and Hubbard nicked van Vogt’s ideas for dianetics.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 06:16 PM   #240
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 70,919
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
Yes an ‘orange’ is a model, a molecule is a model. The mistake is taking the model as reality
Fun fact. I once ran a tabletop roleplaying game session that was set against the backdrop of a shooting war between Operationalist philosophers and Realist philosophers.

Great game.
__________________
Semantic ambiguity is how vampires get you.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:12 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.