IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , consciousness

Reply
Old 16th January 2018, 07:55 PM   #521
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Am I the only one that thinks this . . .


is a contradiction of this . . .?


ETA - I've removed the inappropriate and annoying line breaks to from the original post to make it easier to read (you're welcome).
Yes, I was going to reply along those same lines.
Fudbucker 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 16th January 2018, 08:42 PM   #522
Cheetah
Master Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,934
Originally Posted by surreptitious57 View Post
There is no mind independent testable hypothesis which can be conducted to show that reality is mind independent.
What about if a computer could "look" at reality and, for example, identify flowers. Would that be an independent test?
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah 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 16th January 2018, 08:49 PM   #523
Cheetah
Master Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,934
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Yes, I was going to reply along those same lines.
The first quote says that it is generally accepted that reality is independent of the mind, but it is not really testable.

The second that the two best arguments for the former are "that everyone experiences the same objective reality" and "that the observable Universe existed for over 99.99 per cent of its existence before humans evolved.



Reading comprehension?
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; 16th January 2018 at 08:50 PM.
Cheetah 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 16th January 2018, 09:39 PM   #524
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
The first quote says that it is generally accepted that reality is independent of the mind, but it is not really testable.

The second that the two best arguments for the former are "that everyone experiences the same objective reality" and "that the observable Universe existed for over 99.99 per cent of its existence before humans evolved.



Reading comprehension?
“Not really testable” means we have no evidence with which to test “The first”. Then you immediately contradict that by providing “The second” which can be used as evidence to test “The first”.

Is reality independent of the mind? Let’s test that against the evidence that reality existed long before any mind did. Test complete . . . conclusion obvious.

Testing comprehension?
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 16th January 2018 at 09:45 PM.
ynot 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 16th January 2018, 10:16 PM   #525
Cheetah
Master Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,934
IOW yes, comprehension problems.

How do you prove to a solipsist that he is wrong? He just claims everything is happening in his mind.

Please demonstrate.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; 16th January 2018 at 10:19 PM.
Cheetah 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 17th January 2018, 12:45 AM   #526
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
I can’t imagine any other kind of explanations of consciousness that are worthy of any serious consideration. You and some others imply (at the very least) that there are other kinds of non-scientific methods that offer other kinds of explanations of consciousness, and imply (at the very least) that they are worthy of serious consideration. You and those others NEVER define what those methods or explanations are however.

So yes, I’m definitely giving you and some others “the ball back” to explain what those methods and explanations are. A fair and appropriate request.

Your turn . . .
My comment in other thread:
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
You have not answered my questions just by adding new circumstances that justify or not the punishment of a behaviour and changing some words for others that mean the same thing: forced/coerced, unfair/undeserved. You don't turn the description into a scientific one with those changes. The problem I raised remains the same. Concepts that are not scientific appear in the description I made that you retouched: will, coercion/force, unjust/undeserved. Photons do not pass through an orifice because they want to and water does not deserve to boil at 100º Celsius.

My question continues : How can we make accurate descriptions and explanations including concepts that are not scientific?
It's not easy. But we must include objects that are not observational. Will is a non-observational concept, but one that is unavoidable in describing psychological facts and behaviours. Unjust is a non-observatory concept, but it is inescapable in moral evaluation.

These are the limits of science and the territories where it does not reach... by itself.
David Mo 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 17th January 2018, 12:51 AM   #527
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
IOW yes, comprehension problems.

How do you prove to a solipsist that he is wrong? He just claims everything is happening in his mind.

Please demonstrate.
Ask them to explain how they know they are the solipsist? They could simply be a creation of the solipsist.
__________________
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
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 17th January 2018, 12:53 AM   #528
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
My comment in other thread:

It's not easy. But we must include objects that are not observational. Will is a non-observational concept, but one that is unavoidable in describing psychological facts and behaviours. Unjust is a non-observatory concept, but it is inescapable in moral evaluation.

These are the limits of science and the territories where it does not reach... by itself.
How is will a non-observational concept? I can see it in my dog's behaviour so it isn't just confined to humans.
__________________
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
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 17th January 2018, 12:54 AM   #529
Cheetah
Master Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,934
Ha, if it was that easy there would not be any solipsists.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah 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 17th January 2018, 02:17 AM   #530
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Ask them to explain how they know they are the solipsist? They could simply be a creation of the solipsist.
I remember, back in the days of the alt.destroy.the.earth Usenet newsgroup, that one of the most practical suggestions on offer was to identify the one true solipsist and kill him, thus destroying the entirety of reality.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers 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 17th January 2018, 02:26 AM   #531
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Ha, if it was that easy there would not be any solipsists.
There can only be one!
__________________
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
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 17th January 2018, 02:36 AM   #532
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
My comment in other thread:
Don't see how that waffle has anything at all to do with answering my question.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
It's not easy. But we must include objects that are not observational.
Give an example of an object that isn't observational.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Will is a non-observational concept but one that is unavoidable in describing psychological facts and behaviours. Unjust is a non-observatory concept, but it is inescapable in moral evaluation.
Concepts aren't objects. Give an example of an object that isn't observational.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
These are the limits of science and the territories where it does not reach... by itself.
Concepts are abstract human constructs and science can "reach their territories" as such. Seems you want abstract human constructs to be more than what they actually are.

Even if your poor (being kind) attempt at an explanation did make sense, you still haven't explained what non-scientific method can reach the "territories" that science can't (and how it does it, and what explanations it provides)
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 17th January 2018 at 03:02 AM.
ynot 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 17th January 2018, 03:24 AM   #533
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
It can exist independently of rest mass at least, a spacetime with just a bunch of photons flying in different directions will have a gravitational field.
A cite was requested. Did you perhaps accidentally forget to provide a link?



Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
IOW yes, comprehension problems.

How do you prove to a solipsist that he is wrong? He just claims everything is happening in his mind.

Please demonstrate.
Sure as soon as you prove to a raging paranoiac that no one is really out to get him.

Please demonstrate.



Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Ha, if it was that easy there would not be any solipsists.
Just like there aren't any theists?
The Norseman 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 17th January 2018, 03:29 AM   #534
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
Ian, what you are describing is one interpretation of the evidence

Well, it's hardly a surprise that people (you in the present example) like to believe simplistic things from philosophers. That's nothing new, and it's certainly far easier than putting in real work to study & learn from science.

You are certainly not alone in preferring to believe simple and mysterious seeming things from ancient philosophy and religion. Even in educated western democracies probably 99% of the population are relatively ignorant of science and prefer to believe in all sorts of mystical & supernatural ideas. They think that's more interesting and far easier than putting in many years of hard work to understand how science has shown that all such ancient beliefs from philosophy and religion are untrue, and shown by the actual evidence to be little more fanciful mystical un-educated nonsense (scientifically “un-educated”).

Could science be significantly wrong in the way it currently describes the universe? Of course … science, scientists, and people here are not claiming that every description from science is always absolutely perfect to 100% certainty. But that is not a “gap” which can ever be honestly filled either with “God did it” or with a philosopher rushing in to say “quick, fill the gap with our claim that science cannot detect reality!”.
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 17th January 2018, 03:42 AM   #535
Cheetah
Master Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,934
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Sure as soon as you prove to a raging paranoiac that no one is really out to get him.

Please demonstrate.


Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Just like there aren't any theists?
But there are.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah 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 17th January 2018, 03:53 AM   #536
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
How is will a non-observational concept? I can see it in my dog's behaviour so it isn't just confined to humans.
A non-observational concept have not any evidence in experience, neither direct nor indirect.
“Will” and “fair” are classical non-observational concepts. Any experience you have of what is fair or unfair is decided by a previous concept of fairness.
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Don't see how that waffle has anything at all to do with answering my question.


Give an example of an object that isn't observational.


Concepts aren't objects. Give an example of an object that isn't observational.


Concepts are abstract human constructs and science can "reach their territories" as such. Seems you want abstract human constructs to be more than what they actually are.

Even if your poor (being kind) attempt at an explanation did make sense, you still haven't explained what non-scientific method can reach the "territories" that science can't (and how it does it, and what explanations it provides)
On the concept of observational, see above.

It does not matter to our discussion what type of object is designated by a concept.
Concepts such as "will" or "deserve" are not observational and therefore not scientific. And you have used them in your descriptions that are not more complex of what I proposed, but add unnecessary things to our debate. For example, it is irrelevant to know whether the judged person had a child or not and what kind of object he stole; what matters is that the judge states he did it "because he wanted to" and "not forced" and he deserves -or not- a punishment.

Last edited by David Mo; 17th January 2018 at 03:59 AM.
David Mo 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 17th January 2018, 04:07 AM   #537
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Well, his sarcastic comment was a bit off, but so was the absurd physics in the analogy you made that he was being sarcastic about.
"A bit off"? You mean, like, wrong? Either the speed of propagation of gravity is known or it is not. He said it is not, and then added sarcastically that I should be given a Nobel prize for discovering it. Sarcasm is fine, but not when you've just shown yourself up to be wrong.

Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
"A gravitational field exists independently of mass." Cite please?

"As soon as you remove the mass..." How do you do that, exactly? You can move the mass, which alters the gravitational field. (Current theory holds that those changes propagate at the speed of light, as gravity waves; perhaps you've heard of those.)
You have a mass. You vapourise or otherwise destroy that mass; its gravitational field attenuates at the speed of light. If you vapourise a mass that has been in existance for a million years then it will take a million years for that mass's gravitational field to disappear. So the gravitational field clearly exists in the absence of the mass.

Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
You can also change some of the mass to energy. That in and of itself (until the energy moves, in which case see previous paragraph) has no effect at all on the gravitational field. General Relativity says energy has the same gravitation as the equivalent amount (E/C2) of mass.
The question is, if you deleted that paragraph, would its field of pedantry disappear or simply change to a different form? It's ridiculous. If you measure the gravitational field generated by the Earth, vapourise the Earth with a big laser, then come back in four billion year's time would you say, "Oh, there has been no effect on the gravitational field of the Earth" or "The gravitational field of the Earth has well and truly disappeared"? I think we know the answer. g=GM/r2 is kind of tricky to calculate without M or r.

Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
If you know a way to make mass-energy vanish, or generate a gravitational field independent of mass, you should indeed receive a Nobel prize.
Stop talking soft.

Last edited by baron; 17th January 2018 at 04:11 AM.
baron 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 17th January 2018, 04:22 AM   #538
Cheetah
Master Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,934
Originally Posted by baron View Post
If you vapourise a mass that has been in existance for a million years then it will take a million years for that mass's gravitational field to disappear. So the gravitational field clearly exists in the absence of the mass.
That is not true.

As for "the gravitational field clearly exists in the absence of the mass" only in the sense that when you switch off a light bulb, the light still exists, it is just far away and getting further and will continue to do so until it hits something.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; 17th January 2018 at 04:23 AM.
Cheetah 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 17th January 2018, 04:50 AM   #539
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
That is not true.
It is true.

Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
As for "the gravitational field clearly exists in the absence of the mass" only in the sense that when you switch off a light bulb, the light still exists, it is just far away and getting further and will continue to do so until it hits something.
Exactly right. Light exists independently of light bulbs.
baron 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 17th January 2018, 05:07 AM   #540
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by baron View Post
It is true.
How so?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 17th January 2018, 05:21 AM   #541
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
How so?
If a mass has existed for a million years its gravitational field will extend a million light years. If you remove the mass the gravitational field will attenuate at the speed of light and therefore take a million years to vanish.
baron 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 17th January 2018, 05:25 AM   #542
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by baron View Post
If a mass has existed for a million years its gravitational field will extend a million light years.
Wouldn't that mean that it propagates at the speed of light?

Quote:
If you remove the mass the gravitational field will attenuate at the speed of light and therefore take a million years to vanish.
Thanks for the explanation. Excuse my ignorance, but that means it doesn't work like light i.e. light just keeps going even if the source vanishes. Right?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 17th January 2018, 05:40 AM   #543
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Wouldn't that mean that it propagates at the speed of light?
As far as we know, it does. Actually it would be slightly more if you could physically measure the extent, because space-time itself (i.e. the universe) is itself stretching, but that doesn't violate C.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Thanks for the explanation. Excuse my ignorance, but that means it doesn't work like light i.e. light just keeps going even if the source vanishes. Right?
It's more like a distortion of space-time, think of a cannon ball on a trampoline. Remove the cannon ball and the fabric of the trampoline will return to its original state. It's not a perfect analogy as even with an infinite trampoline the distortion wouldn't keep on propagating, but it's similar.
baron 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 17th January 2018, 05:51 AM   #544
Cheetah
Master Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,934
Originally Posted by baron View Post
If a mass has existed for a million years its gravitational field will extend a million light years. If you remove the mass the gravitational field will attenuate at the speed of light and therefore take a million years to vanish.
Nope, exactly like the light beam keeps traveling after the bulb is off the gravity field also does. It really doesn't matter how long the bulb has been on.

If a mass has existed for x years, its gravitational field will have propagated a distance of x light years from the mass. If it disappears the gravitational field right by the mass will disappear and the disappearance of the field will propagate away at the speed of light. This hollow sphere of gravity field will continue propagating and get larger and larger and weaker and weaker, theoretically for ever, it never disappears.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; 17th January 2018 at 05:54 AM.
Cheetah 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 17th January 2018, 05:54 AM   #545
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by baron View Post
As far as we know, it does. Actually it would be slightly more if you could physically measure the extent, because space-time itself (i.e. the universe) is itself stretching, but that doesn't violate C.
That's my understanding as well.

Quote:
It's more like a distortion of space-time, think of a cannon ball on a trampoline. Remove the cannon ball and the fabric of the trampoline will return to its original state. It's not a perfect analogy as even with an infinite trampoline the distortion wouldn't keep on propagating, but it's similar.
I was still holding up hope for the graviton.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 17th January 2018, 05:58 AM   #546
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by baron View Post
If a mass has existed for a million years its gravitational field will extend a million light years. If you remove the mass the gravitational field will attenuate at the speed of light and therefore take a million years to vanish.
No. If the gravitational field is propagating, it will continue to propagate, even after the mass ceases to exist, exactly as it would have had the mass continued to exist. As the wave front is propagating at the speed of light, the information that the mass no longer exists cannot catch up with it.

However, this is not a realistic scenario. As has already been said, there is no means by which a mass can simply be removed from spacetime; vapourising it simply changes the phase of the matter involved (vapour has mass), and converting it to energy leaves the mass equivalent of the energy created still in existence. So, unless you can come up with a realistic scenario, your claim that a gravitational field can exist in the absence of a mass to generate it is not substantiated.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers 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 17th January 2018, 06:28 AM   #547
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
IOW yes, comprehension problems.

How do you prove to a solipsist that he is wrong? He just claims everything is happening in his mind.

Please demonstrate.

It's not possible to "prove" it to a solipsist (or to any philosophy students here), but only because it's not possible to actually "prove" anything! Science does not claim to actually "prove" even the most well established theories such as QM, GR or evolution.

Instead all we can ever do is look for genuine reliable evidence. And if that becomes so abundant, so clear and unarguable, then it eventually gets accepted as a "Theory". That is all we can ever do. And it's a great deal more than philosophy has ever done. But it's not an actual 100% certain "proof'.

However, anyone can make a claim like that to say perhaps the universe is un-real, or to say that perhaps all that exists is just in your own thoughts. But what science has shown is that any claims of that sort are completely worthless unless you can show how the claim could actually be true. IOW, it's no good anyone merely saying "X might be true". If they make a statement like that then the statement is not credible until they explain how it could be true ... how is it possible for humans to be detecting a universe that is significantly different to the way science has detected and explained it? ... what is the viable alternative explanation from philosophy? … how could thoughts arise in a disembodied mind?
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 17th January 2018, 06:42 AM   #548
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
It's not possible to "prove" it to a solipsist (or to any philosophy students here), but only because it's not possible to actually "prove" anything! Science does not claim to actually "prove" even the most well established theories such as QM, GR or evolution.

Instead all we can ever do is look for genuine reliable evidence. And if that becomes so abundant, so clear and unarguable, then it eventually gets accepted as a "Theory". That is all we can ever do.
Wouldn't that fit the popular definition of "proof", however? It might not be mathematical proof but when we say "proof" we mean "convincingly demonstrated with evidence and argument" or something similar. I think it's needlessly pedantic to argue about the use of this word.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 17th January 2018, 07:46 AM   #549
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Nope, exactly like the light beam keeps traveling after the bulb is off the gravity field also does. It really doesn't matter how long the bulb has been on.

If a mass has existed for x years, its gravitational field will have propagated a distance of x light years from the mass. If it disappears the gravitational field right by the mass will disappear and the disappearance of the field will propagate away at the speed of light. This hollow sphere of gravity field will continue propagating and get larger and larger and weaker and weaker, theoretically for ever, it never disappears.
We're getting hung up on minutiae here. A vanishingly small remnant, no remnant, OK. The point is that the gravitational force exists after the mass has vanished. You're actually supporting my argument in stronger terms than I stated it originally. I said that a gravitational force can exist independently of mass for <whatever> time-scale. You're arguing that a gravitational force can exist independently of mass for ever. There you go.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
However, this is not a realistic scenario. As has already been said, there is no means by which a mass can simply be removed from spacetime; vapourising it simply changes the phase of the matter involved (vapour has mass), and converting it to energy leaves the mass equivalent of the energy created still in existence. So, unless you can come up with a realistic scenario, your claim that a gravitational field can exist in the absence of a mass to generate it is not substantiated.
That doesn't matter. The point is that the principle is correct. A gravitational force can theoretically exist in the absence of mass. As I already said, if you blast the Earth and convert it into radiation then that gravitational field is no longer being maintained by that mass, by definition. If you dispute this, show me the equate you would use to calculate it. You can argue about how energy has not been lost, of course it hasn't, but that doesn't change the facts as relate to my analogy.
baron 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 17th January 2018, 07:50 AM   #550
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,351
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Provide another interpretation that has some credibility beyond being mere unsupported assertion or belief.
You are missing the point-the explanation I provided does not require any belief, it’s the assertion of physical matter that requires belief.
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 17th January 2018, 07:55 AM   #551
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 20,891
Originally Posted by baron View Post
You have a mass. You vapourise or otherwise destroy that mass; its gravitational field attenuates at the speed of light. If you vapourise a mass that has been in existance for a million years then it will take a million years for that mass's gravitational field to disappear. So the gravitational field clearly exists in the absence of the mass.

You cannot destroy the mass. You can in principle (and to a very limited extent in practice) convert some or all of it to energy. But energy also has a gravitational field. In fact the amount of energy that the mass was converted into will have the same aggregate gravitational attraction as the mass that was converted. Subsequent displacement of the mass or energy will alter the gravitational field, the changes propagating at the speed of light as gravity waves. The gravitational field cannot and will not disappear.

Quote:
The question is, if you deleted that paragraph, would its field of pedantry disappear or simply change to a different form? It's ridiculous. If you measure the gravitational field generated by the Earth, vapourise the Earth with a big laser, then come back in four billion year's time would you say, "Oh, there has been no effect on the gravitational field of the Earth" or "The gravitational field of the Earth has well and truly disappeared"? I think we know the answer. g=GM/r2 is kind of tricky to calculate without M or r.

There's an equation that can supply you the M after the earth has been vaporized. (I'll assume that by "vaporization" you mean converted into energy rather than into vapor, even though a laser wouldn't do that, because vapor has mass so M would still be readily at hand.) You might have heard of this equation before. E=MC2. Solve for M (it's not too difficult).

As for the absence of an r, I think you're confused. (Hint: r is not the radius of the earth, in the equation you cite, except in one special case.)

Quote:
Stop talking soft.

I think you mean...
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"*Except Myriad. Even Cthulhu would give him a pat on the head and an ice cream and send him to the movies while he ended the rest of the world." - Foster Zygote
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 17th January 2018, 07:55 AM   #552
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
You are missing the point-the explanation I provided does not require any belief, it’s the assertion of physical matter that requires belief.
You do not believe you exist?
__________________
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
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 17th January 2018, 08:02 AM   #553
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 44,024
As I said before, science has already begun explaining the mechanism behind many of the phenomena of consciousness: cognition, memory, emotions, deja vu, etc...

What science cannot do (and I suspect, this is what a lot of people expect it to do, as a consequence of being able to explain it) is predict which way is a given fom of consciousness going to behave with 100% accuracy. But because of its intricate complexity, a given form of consciousness will not follow any predictive rules. It has a life of its own, so to speak.

I think of it as, say a sport, like soccer. You can explain soccer to someone. You can describe how the game works in detail, what are the rules of the game, etc... But as soon as a soccer match starts, any infinite number of interactions can happen, and you're always up for a surprise. It's a living entity with its own random behavior. That's what makes it impossible to predict (and that's what makes the sports fun)

Likewise, with consciousness. I think no matter how good science gets at explaining every part of its internal mechanism, there will never come a point where we can explain its function so well, that we can predict exactly how an individual is going to behave at any given time, or what processes is his mind going to go through, etc.

That said, science can make a lot of predictions about consciousness, in terms of its mechanism. We know that if we deprive the brain of certain chemicals or connections, it won't be able to perform specific functions. For instance, Capgras Delusion is a "circuit break" between the temporal cortex and the lymbic system in the brain, depriving the individual from a specific "cable" that send the "emotional signal" to the brain when they see a subject such as their mother, creating the illusion in their brain that the person they are observing is not their real mother, but rather an impostor. Many similar experiments have been made, such in cases like the Capgras Syndrome, proving that every single time such "circuit break" happens, the symptom pops up automatically.

These kind of experiments are the ones that have shown us that the brain, magnificent as it is, is no different from a computer. A much much complex computer, but still, subject to changes in functionality based on lack of proper connections, just like a computer. Science has made an amazing amount of progress explaining the brain's circuitry (and consequntially, the consciousness that arises from its connectivity) and will continue to do so. How far it will get in accuracy is something that only time will tell. But I doubt we will ever be able to entirely predict every single behaviour from any given form of consciousness, even if it's a form of consciousness we ourselves create (Artificial Intelligence) The whole "point" of consciousness is that it is unpredictable. It has a life of its own.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan

Last edited by Ron_Tomkins; 17th January 2018 at 08:05 AM.
Ron_Tomkins 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 17th January 2018, 08:05 AM   #554
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
What about if a computer could "look" at reality and, for example, identify flowers. Would that be an independent test?

Unfortunately philosophers would claim that it's not at all an independent test, because the only way you could know anything about any computer results is through your own mind telling you what you believe the computer had shown. You are still entirely reliant upon your own mind/brain/senses.

It's really just pointing out that if intelligent beings of any sort (even any super-advanced aliens from planet Zog), have any personal/individual means of awareness at all, then everything they ever detect will always have to be known to them entirely through that method of personal awareness.

E.g., even if the Aliens from Zog had something very different to our brain & sensory system, so that they detected and “understood” everything through a means called “X”, then philosophers could still claim that whatever the Zogians thought they experienced was still only an image inside of X, and that any external reality (or lack of any such reality) could be totally different from the way it seemed inside of X.
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 17th January 2018, 08:31 AM   #555
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 20,891
Originally Posted by baron View Post
The question is, if you deleted that paragraph, would its field of pedantry disappear or simply change to a different form?

Getting back toward the original topic, that analogy is a far better one than vanishing mass-energy and gravitational fields.

If I regard my conscious experience as the creation of an ongoing narrative by a massively powerful ongoing computation in my brain, I must (after careful observation) also conclude that that process and the resulting narrative construct is far from self-contained. Most of its elements are actually a bricolage of inputs into the computation, sometimes (but not always) rearranged or transformed in various ways. The inputs come primarily from the outside world via my senses; and less directly from past interactions with the outside world via my memories. In both cases, most of "me" (the narrative) is actually made of the world—the things I've seen, the books I've read, the people I've met, the environments I've lived in. The effects of that computation, pieces of that ongoing constructed narrative, in the form of my words and actions, also emanate into the world and inevitably feed into a lot of other ongoing computations and feature in other ongoing narratives.

If I had been vaporized by a big laser just after posting the paragraph you referenced above, the paragraph would still have been there and your response would have been the same as if I were still a living person (assuming you weren't also in the AOE of the big laser!). If the paragraph had been deleted just after you'd read it, the pedantry within it would still be in your conscious thoughts and evoking your reply, now a part of your narrative.

That concept is crudely recognized in the ancient, crude, and common idea of "immortality through fame." But chaos theory and computational theory put a much finer polish on it. Fame, notoriety, victories, great deeds, great works; these are all significant perturbations in the interactive web of the world, but no strand is irrelevant; in the long term the butterflies matter as much as the hurricanes.

You don't need to bring in unevidenced "consciousness fields" to make a case that the individuality and transience of the self are largely cognitive illusions.
__________________
"*Except Myriad. Even Cthulhu would give him a pat on the head and an ice cream and send him to the movies while he ended the rest of the world." - Foster Zygote
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 17th January 2018, 03:56 PM   #556
surreptitious57
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 404
There is no evidence that consciousness can exist outside of a brain. And dualism separates the mental from the physical
but the mental is merely the physical at a more subtle level. The demarcation exists not because it is real rather because
of the human need to categorise and compartmentalise everything. The map is not the terrain just an approximation of it
__________________
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57 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 17th January 2018, 06:26 PM   #557
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,351
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You do not believe you exist?
Do I believe that anything exists as an independent physical object? No, I don’t see any advantage to such a belief. Seems like much woo to me.
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 17th January 2018, 06:45 PM   #558
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
Do I believe that anything exists as an independent physical object? No, I don’t see any advantage to such a belief. Seems like much woo to me.
Solipsism then. Auf Wiedersehen.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones 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 17th January 2018, 10:44 PM   #559
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post

But there are.
If you have some specific questions of how I'm unclear, I'd be willing to explain it.



Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
You are missing the point-the explanation I provided does not require any belief, it’s the assertion of physical matter that requires belief.
The whole point is that it actually doesn't require belief. It exists whether or not you believe in it.
The Norseman 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 17th January 2018, 10:47 PM   #560
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
Do I believe that anything exists as an independent physical object? No, I don’t see any advantage to such a belief. Seems like much woo to me.
Oh, that's BS. Of course you act like things exist independently of you. You would have died long ago through some sort of accident or you doing something because you believed differently but reality intruded.
The Norseman 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

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 08:37 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.