(August 12, 2009 at 5:56 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 12, 2009 at 5:35 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: What I actually said was, "No he's not ... it doesn't matter in the slightest what the solipsist claims (we all know that making a claim means sod all unless it's supported by evidence), this is about a real comparison." so I gave more information than you cared to admit I did and the reasoning I gave was entirely valid!

Solipsism is a bankrupt philosophy just like metaphysics.

You have still not demonstrated that there is less complexity in realism than in solipsism, simply because your allegory does not hold true of solipsism (as Rizomorph rightly pointed out).

Look moron ... I don't need to, I reject solipsism as part of this debate (concerning the complexity of reality vs virtual) and I'm not using fucking allegory! If you want allegory here you go ... it's like saying that cheese proves trees are green! Solipsism has SOD ALL to do with the concept under discussion and just claiming it does makes no difference therefore I DO NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE STUPIDITY OF SOLIPSISM!!!!!!

Kyu

(August 13, 2009 at 12:40 am)theVOID Wrote: Consciousness is a product of the brain and does not exist without the brain.

"Consciousness", in philosophical zombies view of reality, means consciousness of brain states, so to speak of consciousness of brain states without a brain is obviously nonsense. But as I've already said, there is no proof that brain states causally depend upon nor causally necessitate consciousness of those brain states, either. I've already given a refutation of those claims.

Quote:So consciousness of the brains states depends upon the brains states. I am clearly aware of that. That in no way, proves out of either general principles or observational knowledge, that the existence of a brain causally necessitates the existence of conscious experience. The only reason to think that it does is that I am myself conscious of my brains states, and then I am appealing to my own knowledge of my own conscious experience of my brains states, a knowledge I emphatically do not have of other brains. It is both a) externally unverifiable, and b) unnecessary to explain the brain states and behaviour of the human being, and c) unwarranted by general principles or specific observational knowledge, and d) unwarranted due to the lack of knowledge about the internal conscious experience or lack thereof of another brain, the very standard for the knowledge I have of my own conscious experience which I use to justify the idea that I have consciousness, to postulate that there is a necessary causative link between brain states and consciousness and that followingly other brains have conscious experience like I do, just because I do. From a scientific point of view, it is certainly not a valid claim.

(August 13, 2009 at 12:40 am)theVOID Wrote: There can be no consciousness and therefore no mind outside of the brain.

While philosophical zombies acknowledges the existence of the brain, and therefore acknowledges that there can be no consciousness of brain states without brain states to be conscious of, solipsism does not, and since you derive all your knowledge of the brain from your conscious experience of sense-data, there is no way to demonstrate solipsism to be false based on information that derives from your own conscious experience of sense-data without begging the question of realism, that reality exists independently of my conscious experience of sense-data.

In either case, both in the case of realist naturalism which denies other minds (philosophical zombies), and realist noetism which acknowledges other minds, or internal idealism/noetism (solipsism), your conclusions boil down to certain foundational beliefs and presuppositions, if you analyse it properly.

The philsophical zombie is an inconherent concept as I've already said. If they're indistingusible then they'll have all the same beliefs and responses and their brain will behave indentically - if they're indeed really behaviorally indistingusible. Hence they are conscious in the same sense we are. So their entire concept is entirely incoherent.

Solipsism is the notion of there being no other mind other than one's own. But this is false is p-zeds are false because if others aren't p-zeds then they have their own consciousness, so solipsism is false.

Obviously our conclusions come down to our own beliefs. We can only know what we know. This is extremely obvious by definition. We are subjective minds, our beliefs are based on evidence or lack thereof. What is your point?

EvF

(August 13, 2009 at 1:12 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: The philsophical zombie is an inconherent concept as I've already said. If they're indistingusible then they'll have all the same beliefs and responses and their brain will behave indentically - if they're indeed really behaviorally indistingusible. Hence they are conscious in the same sense we are. So their entire concept is entirely incoherent.

The only knowledge you deduce that from, is that you are conscious of your brains states. That does not mean that there is neither a dependence of any kind nor a causal necessitative link between brain states and the consciousness of brain states.

So consciousness, in p-zeds, of the brains states depends upon the brains states being there to be conscious of. I am clearly aware of that. That in no way, proves out of either general principles or observational knowledge, that the existence of a brain causally necessitates the existence of conscious experience. The only reason to think that it does is that I am myself conscious of my brains states, and then I am appealing to my own knowledge of my own conscious experience of my brains states, a knowledge I emphatically do not have of other brains.

The four points here are enough to refute that philosophical zombies is incoherent because it doesn't acknowledge consciousness in other brains.

Because to claim consciousness in other brains, is a) externally unverifiable by the standard of knowledge used to know conscious experience in yourself, which is itself conscious experience, and you don't have such of another persons consciousness, and b) unnecessary to explain the brain states and behaviour of other human beings, and c) unwarranted by general principles or specific observational knowledge, since no causative link or dependence has been proven between brain states and conscious experience.

(August 13, 2009 at 1:12 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Solipsism is the notion of there being no other mind other than one's own.

No. Solipsism is the notion that there is nothing, no independent reality, outside of the mind (conscius experience). That would imply that there would be no minds either, but no things either.

(August 13, 2009 at 1:12 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: But this is false is p-zeds are false

No, because p-zeds admits to the existence of other brains which you claim is enough to know other minds (a notion I have also cateogrically refuted), so you are confounding solipsist and p-zed ontology, which is a red herring.

(August 13, 2009 at 1:12 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: because if others aren't p-zeds then they have their own consciousness, so solipsism is false.

Others don't exist as anything other than sense-data which you have conscious experience of in solipsism.

If other 'things' don't exist either, thats irrelevant and semantic. It makes so actual difference your just using words there.

The point is I have explained why others are more likely to be conscious just as oneself is, than not be. Because p-zeds are incoherent, so whether other 'things' are real or unreal too (which is enitrely irelevant and semantic, what are you on about? Where is the actual difference in experience?) there can be no p-zeds so others are almost certaintly as conscious in the same sense that I know 'I' am.

EvF

EvF,

JP's argument is simply meant to bring awareness of basic beliefs. The only thing you really know, for a fact, exists is your own "mind". To move to the next step, that you have a brain, is to assert a belief without evidence.

This site http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/Apo...cs/Truth2/ helped me comprehend the significance of solipsism as well as looking up TAG, TANG, and the cosmetological argument for god.

As for the philosophical zombies problem...

Philosophical shotguns?

Rhizo

JP: Every assumption you have made is completely unnecessary, cut out the fud and come back to reality.

(August 13, 2009 at 5:07 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: JP's argument is simply meant to bring awareness of basic beliefs. The only thing you really know, for a fact, exists is your own "mind". To move to the next step, that you have a brain, is to assert a belief without evidence.

That you have a mind/conscious experience is itself a (properly) basic belief.

---

(August 13, 2009 at 5:21 pm)theVOID Wrote: JP: Every assumption you have made is completely unnecessary, cut out the fud and come back to reality.

It's not me making assumptions; I am only pointing out that you are yourself making assumptions, such as the assumption that you are conscious, the assumption that reality exists (in spite of quantum physicists disagreeing!), the assumption that other minds exists, etc.

I can only be totally sure of my own mind. But p-zeds are incoherent for reasons previously stated several times. So others almost certainly have minds too due to the fact they're almost certainly not just p-zeds because that concept is incoherent.

EvF

Intriguing... I'm away for a day or two, and this discussion progresses 8 pages As a response to Arcanus, i knew that many here would take dagda's theory as an existence vs. non-existence argument, which is why i had the foresight to respond to the theory with my slightly off-topic post. I was going to post in regards to the theory itself some time ago, but never got a chance. Amazingly... it seems that a solipsist (Which assumes that the self can be known, and that it is the only thing which can be known) missed my post on the existence of the interactable.

So, i respond to solipsism. I actually used to be a solipsist... until i recognized that everything i can sense (and even a great deal that i cannot sense) exist. I can be certain that this discussion exists because i can interact with it. It may exist as a figment of my own vivid imagination, or as a game played by super-advanced creatures, or even as the leg fur of a green-stripped bat-tiger with superpowers... but the fact remains that it exists.

This too can be directed at the self, which could exist in any form imaginable (and possibly many unable to be imagined). One cannot be certain of anything but that their reality exists... however, one must be aware that their viewpoint determines their reality (especially in regards to themself). I see the world from my viewpoint, as you see it from yours, as an ant sees the world from its. Assuming of course... that any of us can see.

All of our knowledge is assumptions... All our evidence circumstantial... All our faith unprovable...

That which we call "knowledge", is but an assumption of correctness, and we are often wrong.

Everything we declare "evidence", happened under conditions (or circumstances), and is therefore circumstantial.

What we feel is true by "faith", is to have absolute confidence in circumstantial knowledge, and is therefore even more fallacious than knowledge or evidence alone.

But our viewpoints exist, therefore we exist, so that which we can interact with exists, thus that which created us exists, and that which (might have) created our creator exists, until you come to "the real world", and that which created it exists.

Existence is the single truth which all things can be certain of... which form we exist in is not so easily known, nor even that i am completely myself. This one truth, that all of our knowledge is the assumption that we are correct, is the basis of existentialism. Philosophers, those who are of other schools of thought, and those deeply anti-philosophy: There is no question about wether we exist or not (we do )... it is in which way that is the true question.

---------------------------
@Jon Paul: of course 'reality' exists (read above)... but in which form is the question.