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 21st February 2021, 06:16 PM   #161
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Doesn’t answer what I asked you.
Your last post wasn't even a question, if I remember correctly.
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 21st February 2021, 06:26 PM   #162
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 71,061
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
"I think, therefore I am", I don't think that's true. Perhaps I’m a dark god dreaming of the life of a human-being, and everything and everyone I know are just my (the dark god's) imagination. Perhaps I’m just an unknown entity watching a movie, while the universe and myself are just part of the movie’s predetermined contents. In both of these cases, the 'myself' I'm familiar with simply does not exist. Again, you failed to get the point.
Perhaps you're a brain in a jar. Perhaps you're a magickal faerie construct. Perhaps perhaps perhaps. What is the point of speculating that you might not be what you experience yourself to be?
__________________
We will meet them on the beach, we will meet them on the phone hook-ups.
- Scott Morrison, probably
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 21st February 2021, 06:29 PM   #163
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
No! ... you are fond of telling people that they are too dumb to understand your brilliant analysis/beliefs/whatever, but afaik nobody here is seriously doubting that we all have thoughts and ideas etc. which you call "experiences" (and which others call "conscious awareness" etc.). We all agree that we do of course have such effects constantly being produced in our mind/brain ... but the majority of people here (and probably everywhere else too) similarly believe that what we envision as events and objects etc. in an external world outside of our mind, are similarly almost certainly real ...

... your opponents here are not claiming real doubt about any of it. The difference is that you are following various philosophers of the past who are claiming there is plausible doubt about whether that external reality exists.

If you make any such suggestion, even to suggest that it might not exist, then there is an obligation on you to show how and why that is all likely ...

... can you show genuine objective evidence of how and why a world outside of a human mind, might not exist?

... is it just because science (nor anything else) can give a 100% absolute proof that the world exists? Because if that's your reason, then you are just engaging in a philosophical (i.e. argumentative) version of the religious God-of-the Gaps game.

Still, this is supposed to be philosophy right? So perhaps by now we should all expect such discussions to be an infantile egotistical waste of everyone's time!

By experiences I don't mean ' such effects constantly being produced in our mind/brain'. Which is quite obvious, because I didn't accept my mind/body to be absolutely real like experiences. By experiences I mean what you have/feel/experience as you hold no idea and not to try to create new one.

You said 'there is an obligation on you to show how and why that is all likely'. But I don't need to show how and why that's likely. My point is you cannot be 100% sure on things like 'whether the universe is real'. 'Can't be sure' itself is my point. I'm not asking you to view this world as an illusion, which I'm not doing right now.
The idea that I do not exist is indeed possible, though. As I have said, perhaps I’m a dark god dreaming of the life of a human-being, and everything and everyone I know are just my (the dark god's) imagination. Perhaps I’m just an unknown entity watching a movie, while the universe and myself are just part of the movie’s predetermined contents. In both of these cases, the 'myself' I'm familiar with simply does not exist.

You ask 'can you show genuine objective evidence of how and why a world outside of a human mind, might not exist?', that's a funny question. You can never find evidence to suggest the universe is either real or unreal, because any evidence you can find lies within this supposed universe which might be either real or unreal. That's one of the reason I believe you can never now whether the universe is real.

You claim 'Because if that's your reason, then you are just engaging in a philosophical (i.e. argumentative) version of the religious God-of-the Gaps game.', that don't make any sense. My point is while experiences are absolutely real, while anything they seem to reflect are not. The idea that 'science cannot know everything or be absolutely sure about anything' is used to suggest that 'anything experiences seem to reflect are not absolutely real'. Cannot see what's your point.

Last edited by Rystiya; 21st February 2021 at 06:53 PM. Reason: mistakes
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 21st February 2021, 06:31 PM   #164
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Perhaps you're a brain in a jar. Perhaps you're a magickal faerie construct. Perhaps perhaps perhaps. What is the point of speculating that you might not be what you experience yourself to be?
The point of these speculation is to show that 'you cannot be abolutely sure about things like 'whether myself/universe is real'', rather than 'you should accept the universe as illusion' (which I disagree). How many times have I made this clear?

Last edited by Rystiya; 21st February 2021 at 06:50 PM. Reason: mistakes
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 21st February 2021, 06:32 PM   #165
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,600
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
> Do you believe the world is real? Yes you do, because your experiences (seem to) tell you so.
I don't know that and neither do you.

Quote:
> Do you believe science is reliable? Yes you do, because your experiences (seem to) tell you so.
My default position is that it appears to describe the Universe in a consistent fashion.

Quote:
> Do you believe you are breathing? Yes you do, because your experiences (seem to) tell you so.
I cannot prove I am not dreaming. Or that the Red King may wake up someday.

Quote:
> Do you believe you have experiences? No, you think they are delusions.
I don't know they are not delusions. But at least they are consistent delusions.

You're welcome.
__________________
"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 21st February 2021, 06:36 PM   #166
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
If anyones sensory system is working (and their brain is working), then how can they "stop themselves creating new ideas thoughts"? ...
take for example a recently born child (say a week or month or a year old), how does it stop thoughts ever occuring in what we call it's "mind" (ie in the brain)?

And while you are answering those questions - please explain what "Nothing" actually is ... what is it? ... what could it ever possible be? (how??).
In order to stop creating new ideas, you can just accept and feel the current moment as it is. Don't try to understand or explain it. Which is pretty simple.

In order to believe nothing, you can just admit that you know nothing.

'Nothing' mean the absence of things, I suppose that's how this word is often used. 'To believe nothing' means 'the amount of things to believe is 0'. Which I suppose is very easy to understand.

Last edited by Rystiya; 21st February 2021 at 06:41 PM. Reason: mistakes
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 21st February 2021, 06:49 PM   #167
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
I don't know that and neither do you.



My default position is that it appears to describe the Universe in a consistent fashion.



I cannot prove I am not dreaming. Or that the Red King may wake up someday.



I don't know they are not delusions. But at least they are consistent delusions.

You're welcome.

Great, now you have admitted that you cannot be absolutely sure about those beliefs which everyone tend to take for granted. That's a huge leap forward. However, take notice that consistency are not absolutly real either, because time and memory are not.

When I did the same thing, I realized that even if I try to think about nothing (not try to create ideas) and disbelieve everything (stop holding any idea), pretend that my life is a movie/dream, my experiences are still nevertheless present (no matter what I believe), and I cannot disbelieve them no matter how hard I try. In short, I can disbelieve everything, except my experiences. That's the main reason why I see experiences as absolutely real.

Notice, by saying experiences are absolutely real, I do not mean the stuff (including sunlight, my computer, etc) they seem to reflect are absolutely real.

The idea that 'only experiences are absolutely real' is only one of the points I used to suggest that 'experiences are transcendent'. Then I claim that 'since experiences are transcendent, the supposed entity which generate and experience them (which I call 'life') must also be transcendent'. That's how my philosophy begins. I didn't expect to see that most of you get stuck before it even begins.

Last edited by Rystiya; 21st February 2021 at 07:02 PM. Reason: mistakes
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 21st February 2021, 09:10 PM   #168
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,470
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
The point of these speculation is to show that 'you cannot be abolutely sure about things like 'whether myself/universe is real'', rather than 'you should accept the universe as illusion' (which I disagree). How many times have I made this clear?
You've made your view clear, but it's just wrong:
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post

Whatever name you want to give to the underlying patterns in your experiences, those patterns are the same, and they are real. They have a mathematical structure that's very well expressed in the laws of physics, for instance.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 21st February 2021, 09:23 PM   #169
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,600
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
Great, now you have admitted that you cannot be absolutely sure about those beliefs which everyone tend to take for granted. That's a huge leap forward. However, take notice that consistency are not absolutly real either, because time and memory are not.

When I did the same thing, I realized that even if I try to think about nothing (not try to create ideas) and disbelieve everything (stop holding any idea), pretend that my life is a movie/dream, my experiences are still nevertheless present (no matter what I believe), and I cannot disbelieve them no matter how hard I try. In short, I can disbelieve everything, except my experiences. That's the main reason why I see experiences as absolutely real.

Notice, by saying experiences are absolutely real, I do not mean the stuff (including sunlight, my computer, etc) they seem to reflect are absolutely real.

The idea that 'only experiences are absolutely real' is only one of the points I used to suggest that 'experiences are transcendent'. Then I claim that 'since experiences are transcendent, the supposed entity which generate and experience them (which I call 'life') must also be transcendent'. That's how my philosophy begins. I didn't expect to see that most of you get stuck before it even begins.
Umm. no.
__________________
"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 21st February 2021, 10:18 PM   #170
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 71,061
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
The point of these speculation is to show that 'you cannot be abolutely sure about things like 'whether myself/universe is real'', rather than 'you should accept the universe as illusion' (which I disagree). How many times have I made this clear?
A universe that appears in all ways real to me, but isn't, is absolutely indistinguishable from a universe that is real. Therefore I gain nothing by speculating about the former, since the revelation that the universe is not really real does not change my thought processes or behaviour in the slightest. It's literally a waste of my mental energy, which is in short enough supply as it is.
__________________
We will meet them on the beach, we will meet them on the phone hook-ups.
- Scott Morrison, probably
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 22nd February 2021, 02:26 AM   #171
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
By experiences I don't mean ' such effects constantly being produced in our mind/brain'. Which is quite obvious, because I didn't accept my mind/body to be absolutely real like experiences. By experiences I mean what you have/feel/experience as you hold no idea and not to try to create new one.

You need to show that you have any such "feel/experience" without any ideas or thoughts created in your mind/brain. In fact you need to actually PROVE that you still have such "experiences" without any thoughts or ideas of "feelings" in your mind, because you just presented that as an absolute "fact" with no caution whatsoever. OK, so where is your proof for that? ...

... if you cannot produce a proof here, then your claim is 100% worthless.



Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
You said 'there is an obligation on you to show how and why that is all likely'. But I don't need to show how and why that's likely. My point is you cannot be 100% sure on things like 'whether the universe is real'. 'Can't be sure' itself is my point. I'm not asking you to view this world as an illusion, which I'm not doing right now.

You do most definitely have such obligations to support your enormous huge claims, such as the claim that you just presented as absolute fact to claim that we have "experiences" without any thoughts or ideas ever happening in our mind. Where is your proof for that? ..

... please now PROVE that something called "experiences" still somehow occur somewhere (where??) when your mind is completely devoid of any thinking awareness?


You must have been asked for your proofs here at least 20 times now, and so far you have produced precisely Nothing! ... nothing whatsoever. Get on with it - Produce the Proof please.


Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post

The idea that I do not exist is indeed possible, though. As I have said, perhaps I’m a dark god dreaming of the life of a human-being, and everything and everyone I know are just my (the dark god's) imagination. Perhaps I’m just an unknown entity watching a movie, while the universe and myself are just part of the movie’s predetermined contents. In both of these cases, the 'myself' I'm familiar with simply does not exist.

OK, so now we have yet another statement of absolute fact from you!! How do you know that "it is indeed possible that I do not exist"???? ... how do you know it's possible that humans don't exist but can still imagine things and have "experiences"? You will need to produce a proof for that as well now -

- please show how it is possible that you/anyone can have mental experiences when they do not exist .


Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
You ask 'can you show genuine objective evidence of how and why a world outside of a human mind, might not exist?', that's a funny question. You can never find evidence to suggest the universe is either real or unreal, because any evidence you can find lies within this supposed universe which might be either real or unreal. That's one of the reason I believe you can never now whether the universe is real.

All the known evidence ever detected by anyone, supports the idea that the world is real. It might somehow be possible that such evidence is misleading, so that what we experience is not actually real ... but in that case you have to show how that is possible ... can you show any evidence of how things that we detect are actually unreal, ie having no existence at all?

If that were indeed the case, then it should have been possible by now that we'd have discovered why things like planets, stars, space, people, animals, buildings etc. are merely unreal illusions ... but so far not only have we not discovered anything like that at all, but we have actually not discovered even any hint at all of any such thing, and afaik we have not even discovered any evidence of how that might be possible for the entirety of reality that we detect around us ...

... please show the evidence which confirms that the observed reality of the universe might be just an imaginary illusion.



Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
You claim 'Because if that's your reason, then you are just engaging in a philosophical (i.e. argumentative) version of the religious God-of-the Gaps game.', that don't make any sense. My point is while experiences are absolutely real, while anything they seem to reflect are not. The idea that 'science cannot know everything or be absolutely sure about anything' is used to suggest that 'anything experiences seem to reflect are not absolutely real'. Cannot see what's your point.


Well the point was extremely clear, but to repeat it for you - you keep talking about things as if your own mere verbal claims (devoid any actual evidence) are definite facts, and as if you actually "know" such things ... but the point is that we have learned through science, through QM/QFT, that such certainty is probably not possible in a universe like ours ... but you seem to be constantly claiming that because science cannot "prove" things (neither science nor anything else can actually "prove" such things), you will therefore claim that it's possible that reality does not exist ... thats just like the religious arguments that place God in every gap where science has yet to produce an explanation so overwhelming that theists just look ridiculous trying to claim that the science is wrong.


Why are you rejecting the answers that we've discovered by science, where science has shown a level of success so phenomenal that it's beyond almost any possible human comprehension for all of what it's discovered and explained … why are you rejecting that as our best method of deciding what is and what is not true, and instead you are relying upon so-called philosophy which has a record of precisely zero ability ever to discover or properly explain a single thing!

Last edited by IanS; 22nd February 2021 at 02:27 AM.
IanS 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 22nd February 2021, 02:44 AM   #172
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
The point of these speculation is to show that 'you cannot be abolutely sure about things like 'whether myself/universe is real'', rather than 'you should accept the universe as illusion' (which I disagree). How many times have I made this clear?

Well I repeatedly told you exactly that, many posts/pages back! I already told you (and explained why it's the case), that since the discovery of QM in the 1920's science showed how and why it's probably not possible to actually "Prove" things in a universe like ours ... instead the highest level of confidence is described as a "Theory" ...

... but just because we cannot scientifically "prove" that the universe is real (where we cannot prove anything at all ... you cannot even prove that you have "experiences"!!), that does not mean there is any validity in philosophy trying to fill that "gap" by claiming that reality does not exist ... as soon as they/you say anything like that, or if they/you merely say that it "might" not exist, then they/you are making an absolute claim for which they/you need to produce a 100% actual "PROOF".

Is there a good reason to think our universe is not real?

Can you produce evidence of any such reason?

No? Can't produce any such evidence to support that belief? OK, so then on what basis are you doubting all of reality?

Last edited by IanS; 22nd February 2021 at 02:46 AM.
IanS 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 22nd February 2021, 03:31 AM   #173
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,827
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
Your last post wasn't even a question, if I remember correctly.
It was a comment that you still haven’t answered the question I originally asked you.

That comment still stands - you still have yet to answer the actual question I asked you.
__________________
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 22nd February 2021, 03:33 AM   #174
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,827
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
In order to stop creating new ideas, you can just accept and feel the current moment as it is. Don't try to understand or explain it. Which is pretty simple.
…snip…


Not for me it isn’t. If I’m not thinking I have no experience of existing.
__________________
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 22nd February 2021, 08:30 AM   #175
Reformed Offlian
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 361
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Perhaps you're a brain in a jar. Perhaps you're a magickal faerie construct. Perhaps perhaps perhaps. What is the point of speculating that you might not be what you experience yourself to be?
Indeed, that's pretty much Putnam's actual point in his "Brains in a jar" piece: positing a reality utterly disconnected from experience is, given Putnam's causal theory of meaning, literally meaningless.
Reformed Offlian 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 22nd February 2021, 08:41 AM   #176
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
In order to stop creating new ideas, you can just accept and feel the current moment as it is. Don't try to understand or explain it. Which is pretty simple.

What do you mean by saying that you can "feel" the current moment? How do you "feel" it ... what is actually happening to give you any such "feeling"?

You are talking about conscious awareness, i.e. something in what we all call the “mind” (not in you leg or in your pet rabbit). So what is it that produces any such “feeling” in your mind? How are you aware of any such thing as a “feeling” in your mind?


Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
In order to believe nothing, you can just admit that you know nothing.

'Nothing' mean the absence of things, I suppose that's how this word is often used. 'To believe nothing' means 'the amount of things to believe is 0'. Which I suppose is very easy to understand.

I did not ask you what you "did not believe in"! I did not ask you whether you knew nothing about various things. What I asked you was what "Nothing" actually is ...

... what actually is "Nothing""? Can you answer that please.

... is there such as thing as "No-Thing"?
IanS 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 22nd February 2021, 09:15 AM   #177
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,827
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
…snip…

... what actually is "Nothing""? Can you answer that please.

... is there such as thing as "No-Thing"?
It’s someone again mixing up the fact that we can can apparently describe unreal things* with our language with the actual existence of the unreal things.

I can say “And the starship accelerated beyond the speed of light in a vacuum”, but that doesn’t mean such a starship exists and of course such a starship could never exist.


*things is a technical term for things made of stuff
__________________
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 22nd February 2021, 09:21 AM   #178
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,827
And this experience malarkey gets me confused. When I don’t think I don’t experience anything, so when I’ve been under a general anaesthetic I have no experiences even though the bag of water and other chemicals that people call “Darat” certainly experienced unspeakable acts of barbarity.

It does bring up some strange thoughts, when someone is being given ketamine for “pain relief” - yet they still scream out in pain when say the leg break is being repositioned, what it does is mean they don’t remember experiencing the pain afterwards. Did they then experience the pain or not?
__________________
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 23rd February 2021, 11:01 AM   #179
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
It’s someone again mixing up the fact that we can can apparently describe unreal things* with our language with the actual existence of the unreal things.

I can say “And the starship accelerated beyond the speed of light in a vacuum”, but that doesn’t mean such a starship exists and of course such a starship could never exist.


*things is a technical term for things made of stuff
We don't need to reference fantasies such as starships traversing vacuum of space, we can reference any real object such as an orange. How we might describe the experience of an orange - a color, texture, taste, etc - this description is not the real stuff. This experience of quantities is generated by the brain, and occurs inside the confines of my brain.
Outside of my brain (according to physicalism) is the real world of quantities such as mass, spin, charge, position, etc. These numeric quantities are what is real. Qualities of experience such as color orange, orange peel texture, taste and even the completeness of an orange object, are generated by the brain.
IOW, we materialists are suggesting the vast majority (if not all) of our experience is not real - what is real are the quantities (mass, spin, frequency, charge, etc.) that modulate our experiences.
We can coorelate some of our experiences of qualities with quantities (ex blue as a wave length), but we can't explain how these quantities give rise to experience of qualities . . .we'll leave that explanation to a future generation.
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 23rd February 2021, 01:56 PM   #180
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
We don't need to reference fantasies such as starships traversing vacuum of space, we can reference any real object such as an orange. How we might describe the experience of an orange - a color, texture, taste, etc - this description is not the real stuff. This experience of quantities is generated by the brain, and occurs inside the confines of my brain.

Outside of my brain (according to physicalism) is the real world of quantities such as mass, spin, charge, position, etc. These numeric quantities are what is real. Qualities of experience such as color orange, orange peel texture, taste and even the completeness of an orange object, are generated by the brain.

OK, well so far (from the above), I don't really disagree with any of that. So far that seems to be exactly the view that current science science has on this subject.


Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
IOW, we materialists are suggesting the vast majority (if not all) of our experience is not real - what is real are the quantities (mass, spin, frequency, charge, etc.) that modulate our experiences.

We can coorelate some of our experiences of qualities with quantities (ex blue as a wave length), but we can't explain how these quantities give rise to experience of qualities . . .we'll leave that explanation to a future generation.

Ahh, but now you are veering off into what seems to be some sort of God-of-the-Gaps type of fallacy, whereby because (afaik) there is no generally agreed relatively complete explanation for what conscious awareness actually is, you want to use that “gap” to insert a claim of something deeply mysterious and unscientific in there.

OK, I'm going to give you an explanation which I've given before on this forum, which would close that gap. Though of course I'm not claiming the following to be the definite answer, but I suspect it will probably turn out to be something like the following -

First we have to describe what appears (according to all of science, afaik) to be happening between the brain, the sensory system, and other parts of the body (nervous system, muscles etc.) …

1 we have a real physically existing object, such as the orange in your example.

2 the cells of our sensory system (reacting to sight, smell, touch etc.) undergo chemical changes/reactions as responses to being within close enough proximity to that that object (orange).

3 the chemical changes in the sensory cells are transmitted to various organs of the body including the brain, and as a result of receiving those chemical changes, the brain responds with it's own chemical changes and then transmits those changes back to both the sensory system and to other parts of the body (nervous system, muscles etc.) ... and that process of chemical changes is going on back-&-forth between all those parts of the body, i.e. in particular there is a rapid back-&-forth set of chemical changes or responses being exchanged between the brain and the sensory system ...

... OK, so here's my suggestion as to why a process like the above (i.e. 1, 2, & 3) produces the sensation of a real-time visual-type “conscious” viewing of whatever the object or event is … Namely -

- the reason why we experience what seems to us to be an almost inexplicable real-time "conscious awareness" of all that is happening in our surroundings, is because that process of exchanging the detected information is going on relatively rapidly between the sensory system and the brain ... so that on our human time-scale it seems to us that we have a sort of real-time changing "conscious awareness" or “view”, rather like a moving film ....

... IOW - if that process happened at a relatively much slower rate, then we would only perceive or “experience” that as individual non-moving static pictures with relatively long gaps between one sensation to the next sensation ... and that would not seem to us like any conscious awareness ... that would just seem to us to be static chunks of information which we would then react to only very slowly. In fact, in that scenario, it might be that the single isolated pieces of the picture, are not even say an entire shape of the orange/object … it might be just a series of tiny little vague parts of the information from the sensory system, e.g. just a small change in light intensity, or a small change in temperature etc. … and very likely that would have been the case with the earliest living organisms that had the first beginnings of an identifiable brain (say, 1 billion years ago), where they were getting only a very rudimentary partial “experience” or “awareness” that was changing and updating only very slowly …

… so IOW, one of the factors we need to appreciate here is evolution and the vast tracts of time over which that has advanced. So that now, when we ourselves experience that sensory process as humans, it seems quite amazing as if almost inexplicable, but it probably would not seem so inexplicable if we could observe all of the trillions and trillions of tiny evolutionary advances that have taken place to arrive at the sort or very advanced detection system we now have as a very highly evolved brain and sensory system that has taken 3 billion years to reach our current level of capability.

Last edited by IanS; 23rd February 2021 at 01:59 PM.
IanS 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 23rd February 2021, 02:40 PM   #181
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,827
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
We don't need to reference fantasies such as starships traversing vacuum of space, we can reference any real object such as an orange. How we might describe the experience of an orange - a color, texture, taste, etc - this description is not the real stuff. This experience of quantities is generated by the brain, and occurs inside the confines of my brain.
Outside of my brain (according to physicalism) is the real world of quantities such as mass, spin, charge, position, etc. These numeric quantities are what is real. Qualities of experience such as color orange, orange peel texture, taste and even the completeness of an orange object, are generated by the brain.
IOW, we materialists are suggesting the vast majority (if not all) of our experience is not real - what is real are the quantities (mass, spin, frequency, charge, etc.) that modulate our experiences.
We can coorelate some of our experiences of qualities with quantities (ex blue as a wave length), but we can't explain how these quantities give rise to experience of qualities . . .we'll leave that explanation to a future generation.
Yeah we know our senses don’t tell us everything….
__________________
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 23rd February 2021, 03:12 PM   #182
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
We don't need to reference fantasies such as starships traversing vacuum of space, we can reference any real object such as an orange. How we might describe the experience of an orange - a color, texture, taste, etc - this description is not the real stuff. This experience of quantities is generated by the brain, and occurs inside the confines of my brain.


Outside of my brain (according to physicalism) is the real world of quantities such as mass, spin, charge, position, etc. These numeric quantities are what is real. Qualities of experience such as color orange, orange peel texture, taste and even the completeness of an orange object, are generated by the brain.

Just for the record - when I said I could agree (roughly, more-or-less) with the above. I do not of course agree that "orange peel texture" only exists in the brain ... the orange has a physical texture (as far as any of us know), and when we describe that texture (or the colour, or the taste or smell etc.), we are describing what our brain & sensory system perceives as those particular properties or sensations ...

... if an alien from some faraway galaxy described those properties in a different way (i.e. the texture and colour etc.), then afaik the difference would only be in the way we each chose to use language/communication to describe features that are actually present in the orange ... it would not (afaik) be the case the the alien (or anyone else, inc.people on Earth) actually detected something completely different as a "texture" or a "colour" ... e.g., they also sense something which they sense by touch or sight (or by some equivalent means), and they might describe it differently, but those features would nevertheless still be present as part of the physical object that we call the "orange".
IanS 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 23rd February 2021, 05:29 PM   #183
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Just for the record - when I said I could agree (roughly, more-or-less) with the above. I do not of course agree that "orange peel texture" only exists in the brain ... the orange has a physical texture (as far as any of us know), and when we describe that texture (or the colour, or the taste or smell etc.), we are describing what our brain & sensory system perceives as those particular properties or sensations ...

... if an alien from some faraway galaxy described those properties in a different way (i.e. the texture and colour etc.), then afaik the difference would only be in the way we each chose to use language/communication to describe features that are actually present in the orange ... it would not (afaik) be the case the the alien (or anyone else, inc.people on Earth) actually detected something completely different as a "texture" or a "colour" ... e.g., they also sense something which they sense by touch or sight (or by some equivalent means), and they might describe it differently, but those features would nevertheless still be present as part of the physical object that we call the "orange".
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.

Last edited by LarryS; 23rd February 2021 at 05:40 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 23rd February 2021, 06:56 PM   #184
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
You've made your view clear, but it's just wrong:
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.
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 23rd February 2021, 06:57 PM   #185
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
A universe that appears in all ways real to me, but isn't, is absolutely indistinguishable from a universe that is real. Therefore I gain nothing by speculating about the former, since the revelation that the universe is not really real does not change my thought processes or behaviour in the slightest. It's literally a waste of my mental energy, which is in short enough supply as it is.
Which I absolutely agrees. However I have never suggested that you should view this universe as an illusion. My point is 'you can't be sure'. How many times have I told you 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 23rd February 2021, 07:01 PM   #186
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 71,061
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
Which I absolutely agrees. However I have never suggested that you should view this universe as an illusion. My point is 'you can't be sure'. How many times have I told you this?
What is the point in being unsure? Does being unsure change the way I relate to what I perceive to be the universe?

No, it doesn't. It is an absolute waste of mental energy to be unsure. The universe exists. Period.

Also, a movie has to exist in a universe for me to be able to watch it.
__________________
We will meet them on the beach, we will meet them on the phone hook-ups.
- Scott Morrison, probably
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 23rd February 2021, 07:03 PM   #187
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
You need to show that you have any such "feel/experience" without any ideas or thoughts created in your mind/brain. In fact you need to actually PROVE that you still have such "experiences" without any thoughts or ideas of "feelings" in your mind, because you just presented that as an absolute "fact" with no caution whatsoever. OK, so where is your proof for that? ...

... if you cannot produce a proof here, then your claim is 100% worthless.






You do most definitely have such obligations to support your enormous huge claims, such as the claim that you just presented as absolute fact to claim that we have "experiences" without any thoughts or ideas ever happening in our mind. Where is your proof for that? ..

... please now PROVE that something called "experiences" still somehow occur somewhere (where??) when your mind is completely devoid of any thinking awareness?


You must have been asked for your proofs here at least 20 times now, and so far you have produced precisely Nothing! ... nothing whatsoever. Get on with it - Produce the Proof please.





OK, so now we have yet another statement of absolute fact from you!! How do you know that "it is indeed possible that I do not exist"???? ... how do you know it's possible that humans don't exist but can still imagine things and have "experiences"? You will need to produce a proof for that as well now -

- please show how it is possible that you/anyone can have mental experiences when they do not exist .





All the known evidence ever detected by anyone, supports the idea that the world is real. It might somehow be possible that such evidence is misleading, so that what we experience is not actually real ... but in that case you have to show how that is possible ... can you show any evidence of how things that we detect are actually unreal, ie having no existence at all?

If that were indeed the case, then it should have been possible by now that we'd have discovered why things like planets, stars, space, people, animals, buildings etc. are merely unreal illusions ... but so far not only have we not discovered anything like that at all, but we have actually not discovered even any hint at all of any such thing, and afaik we have not even discovered any evidence of how that might be possible for the entirety of reality that we detect around us ...

... please show the evidence which confirms that the observed reality of the universe might be just an imaginary illusion.







Well the point was extremely clear, but to repeat it for you - you keep talking about things as if your own mere verbal claims (devoid any actual evidence) are definite facts, and as if you actually "know" such things ... but the point is that we have learned through science, through QM/QFT, that such certainty is probably not possible in a universe like ours ... but you seem to be constantly claiming that because science cannot "prove" things (neither science nor anything else can actually "prove" such things), you will therefore claim that it's possible that reality does not exist ... thats just like the religious arguments that place God in every gap where science has yet to produce an explanation so overwhelming that theists just look ridiculous trying to claim that the science is wrong.


Why are you rejecting the answers that we've discovered by science, where science has shown a level of success so phenomenal that it's beyond almost any possible human comprehension for all of what it's discovered and explained … why are you rejecting that as our best method of deciding what is and what is not true, and instead you are relying upon so-called philosophy which has a record of precisely zero ability ever to discover or properly explain a single thing!

'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.

Just don't forget that if you don't want to believe the existence of your experiences, then you also have to disbelieve everything you discovered from your experiences, including your mind and body, other people, science, the entire universe, everything. Good luck.

Last edited by Rystiya; 23rd February 2021 at 07:23 PM. Reason: mistakes
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 23rd February 2021, 07:07 PM   #188
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Well I repeatedly told you exactly that, many posts/pages back! I already told you (and explained why it's the case), that since the discovery of QM in the 1920's science showed how and why it's probably not possible to actually "Prove" things in a universe like ours ... instead the highest level of confidence is described as a "Theory" ...

... but just because we cannot scientifically "prove" that the universe is real (where we cannot prove anything at all ... you cannot even prove that you have "experiences"!!), that does not mean there is any validity in philosophy trying to fill that "gap" by claiming that reality does not exist ... as soon as they/you say anything like that, or if they/you merely say that it "might" not exist, then they/you are making an absolute claim for which they/you need to produce a 100% actual "PROOF".

Is there a good reason to think our universe is not real?

Can you produce evidence of any such reason?

No? Can't produce any such evidence to support that belief? OK, so then on what basis are you doubting all of reality?

You claim that 'that does not mean there is any validity in philosophy trying to fill that "gap" by claiming that reality does not exist', and you are just refuting something I'm not trying to defend. My whole point is 'you can't be absolutely sure'. 'Not sure' itself is the point.

If you want to refute this idea, you need to show that 'you can be absolutely sure', which you can't.

You don't have any evidence to prove the universe to be either real or unreal. I tell you about this again.
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 23rd February 2021, 07:10 PM   #189
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
What is the point in being unsure? Does being unsure change the way I relate to what I perceive to be the universe?

No, it doesn't. It is an absolute waste of mental energy to be unsure. The universe exists. Period.

Also, a movie has to exist in a universe for me to be able to watch it.

You say 'It is an absolute waste of mental energy to be unsure'? Haven't I told you that my purpose of saying 'universe is not absolutly real' is to use the idea that 'experiences are absolutely real while universe is not' as one of the reasons why experiences are transcendent?


If all your experiences are a movie, ('movie' here can be conceived as predetermined feelings which don't actually reflect anything), then you and the universe you know is not real. Perhaps you are just a spirit living without time and space.
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 23rd February 2021, 08:08 PM   #190
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 71,061
I'm seeing a lot of "if..." statements here. Think about this. If all my experiences aren't a movie, then we're back to the universe being really real and my perceptions being accurate.

This is a much more parsimonious result than speculating about cosmic movies being played on non-universe based screens.

Plug the right thing into an "if..." statement, and you can draw a conclusion to support absolutely anything.
__________________
We will meet them on the beach, we will meet them on the phone hook-ups.
- Scott Morrison, probably
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 23rd February 2021, 10:29 PM   #191
Rystiya
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I'm seeing a lot of "if..." statements here. Think about this. If all my experiences aren't a movie, then we're back to the universe being really real and my perceptions being accurate.

This is a much more parsimonious result than speculating about cosmic movies being played on non-universe based screens.

Plug the right thing into an "if..." statement, and you can draw a conclusion to support absolutely anything.

As I have told you for billions of times, 'My whole point is 'you can't be absolutely sure'. 'Not sure' itself is the point.'.

You are arguing that it makes more sense to suggest the universe is real. Which I agree. I never said you should live a life assuming it is unreal. Is it really that hard to understand?

You said 'Plug the right thing into an "if..." statement, and you can draw a conclusion to support absolutely anything.', which is right. This reveals that there is an unlimited amount of ways to explain our experiences which cannot be proved wrong. And that suggest that we cannot be absolutely sure about any of these explanations. We can only pick the one which seems the most likely. (If alpha star do this, it will choose to believe that star craft 2 is the entire universe).

Last edited by Rystiya; 23rd February 2021 at 10:35 PM. Reason: mistakes
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 23rd February 2021, 10:47 PM   #192
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 71,061
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
As I have told you for billions of times, 'My whole point is 'you can't be absolutely sure'. 'Not sure' itself is the point.'.
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?
__________________
We will meet them on the beach, we will meet them on the phone hook-ups.
- Scott Morrison, probably
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 23rd February 2021, 10:51 PM   #193
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,470
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.
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?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 23rd February 2021, 10:53 PM   #194
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,470
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
As I have told you for billions of times, 'My whole point is 'you can't be absolutely sure'. 'Not sure' itself is the point.'.

You are arguing that it makes more sense to suggest the universe is real. Which I agree. I never said you should live a life assuming it is unreal. Is it really that hard to understand?
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.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 23rd February 2021, 10:57 PM   #195
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,470
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?
I think the speculation could have been useful if it turned out that there really was good reason to think that a sollipist viewpoint was accurate. "Wow, the universe appears to just be a random assortment of experiences, maybe it doesn't actually exist and I'm just dreaming it." would probably be useful if the next thought was "Maybe I can try to wake up."

Even if there were nothing one could do in that sort of situation, I think there's value in knowing the truth, whether or not it's actionable.

But in the case of our actual universe, we've examined it and the most parsimonious explanation for the things we see (by far) is that there's a real world out there with which we are interacting. So there's not much point in continuing the speculation given it's incredibly unlikely to be true.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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, 12:23 AM   #196
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 24,467
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
"I think, therefore I am", I don't think that's true. Perhaps I’m a dark god dreaming of the life of a human-being, and everything and everyone I know are just my (the dark god's) imagination. Perhaps I’m just an unknown entity watching a movie, while the universe and myself are just part of the movie’s predetermined contents. In both of these cases, the 'myself' I'm familiar with simply does not exist. Again, you failed to get the point.
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.

Last edited by Sideroxylon; 24th February 2021 at 12:29 AM.
Sideroxylon 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, 03:38 AM   #197
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
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 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).
IanS 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, 03:41 AM   #198
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
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.

Just don't forget that if you don't want to believe the existence of your experiences, then you also have to disbelieve everything you discovered from your experiences, including your mind and body, other people, science, the entire universe, everything. Good luck.

See my reply above to Larry.
IanS 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, 04:42 AM   #199
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,167
Originally Posted by Rystiya View Post
You claim that 'that does not mean there is any validity in philosophy trying to fill that "gap" by claiming that reality does not exist', and you are just refuting something I'm not trying to defend. My whole point is 'you can't be absolutely sure'. 'Not sure' itself is the point.

If you want to refute this idea, you need to show that 'you can be absolutely sure', which you can't.

You don't have any evidence to prove the universe to be either real or unreal. I tell you about this again.


If your whole point is to say that we cannot be "absolutely sure" of anything, the you have NO POINT! Because that is something that the world became aware of with the discovery of quantum theory in the 1920's! And that is something I have pointed out to you at least 10 times already in this thread.


Before the early 1920's most scientists (and everyone else) believed that if we had every possible piece of information about any object or event, then in principle at least, we would be able to state with 100% certainty exactly how any event/object/system would behave ...

... but with quantum theory that idea (which seemed inescapably obvious and unarguable to everyone ... though it was of course an un-proven assumption; which is/was of course where the flaw in the reasoning arises), had to be abandoned when it was discovered that the fundamental forces (ie fields, that we used to call "particles") of which everything in this universe is composed, behaved only ever according to laws of probability and never to laws of any determinate "certainty" ... IOW ; you cannot (if QM is correct, and we think it is) ever predict exactly how anything in this universe will behave as a matter of literal certainty ...

... and just to be clear about something (because I suspect that you are far from clearly understanding this) - quantum effects still occur for all objects and events on our human size scale ... you yourself, and everything in the universe is subject to that same quantum uncertainty ... I.e., it's not just something that only exists for the smallest sub-atomic fields/particles ...

... the only difference is that, on our scale of things, the quantum effects are averaged out over billions and billions of sub-atomic processes that take place trillions of trillions of times per fraction of a second (we are talking about the Planck scale for times and dimensions) ... so that for us, and for everything we see and detect around us, the world seems completely stable and behaving with certainty, because what we detect as the quantum uncertainties is really the result of the averaging, ie an average outcome, constantly occurring across all of the trillions and trillions of almost instantaneous sub-atomic events ...

... but just to put that into an important perspective - there is neverthless a real existing probability that if we could wait long enough then you would eventually see/detect entire macroscopic objects (such as Larry's ornage) suddenly disapearing and re-appearing somewhere else in the universe! ... there is no "certainty".
IanS 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, 05:32 AM   #200
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 24,467
The burden of proof is with the matrix or whatever other bong imaginations you can come up with.
Sideroxylon 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
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 08:03 PM.
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.