Non-existence

[Kyuuketsuki]

No, it doesn't because I am not arguing what the solipsist believes I am arguing that a universe that is virtual or dreamed involves more complexity than one that is real.

That's fine. But that doesn't address solipsism, since that is not solipsism, and as a consequence, you are refuting the simplicity of an ontology which is not solipsistic, and as a consequence, you fail to refute the simplicity of solipsism.

I am NOT INTERESTED in arguing any of your crap about solipsism ... it wasn't necessary to argue when we were discussing virtualisation/dreaming/real vs. unreal before, it isn't necessary now! You are using it as a shield!

I couldn't care less what some whacked up bunch of nutfuckers believe!

The concern is not the solipsists, but rather how we know they are wrong, which is the only important issue here.

No, the key point is that YOU are wrong when you claim that an unreal world (supposedly indistinguishable form the real one) is equally or less complex than the real one ... this is not true (for reason previously supplied)!

No, the realist acknowledge reality! Using phrases such as "ontological reality" is just jumped up metaphysical hyper-bollocks ... it is utterly unnecessary to the conversation (as evidenced by the fact that it wasn't necessary before in this particular piece of the conversation) and I suspect you use them as something to retreat behind, an attempt to confuse your opponents by ducking behind philosophical complexities and language!

I certainly don't. Solipsism is a claim with ontological and epistemological implications, just like realism. Ontology is the study of the nature of being, and epistemology is the study of the nature of knowing. Now there's nothing you don't know.

Don't you get it, moron? I couldn't care less if solipsism were origami on toast ... I don't give a shit about the ontological and epistemological consequences of anything, I think it (all your philosophical and metaphysical posturing) is nothing but psychobabble!

You know you can carry on this stupid word game all you want but I will not play ... your philosophy (specifically your metaphysical and meta-ontological crap) is bollocks and I will continue to consider it so until such time as you meet the challenge I have already set you! Meet that successfully and I will play your game, until then give us a break!

Right, and I will ignore you until you come up with real arguments instead of complaints over words you don't like.

Yet you continue! And no, you can't, because there is no getting away from the fact that you are using your philosophical twaddle as a shield to prevent others arguing against you!

So let me get this straight. The mind exists, and that which it experiences is itself the mind and not a part of the mind nor a system within the mind?

The mind exists, and the mind is the reality and entity which contains all conscious experience and sense-data which is consciously experienced. Nothing is known to exist except the mind.

Rubbish! Whilst I accept the mind views the real universe indirectly (it has to because none of our external sensory organs have a whit of intelligence whilst the brain cannot view directly) and, as such, the brain almost certainly operates through an internally supported mental model of its universe it is stupid to suggest the brain knows nothing of the universe in which it exists ... we are intelligent beings and are capable of interpreting what we "know" to operate within our universe.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

@ Jon Paul,

You didn't address my last post to you earlier in this thread, in response to you:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-1531-pos...l#pid25352

EvF

[Rhizomorph13]

But Kyu,

Dagda birthed his idea about the non-existence of the universe, I labeled it solipsism, and here we are talking about that very thing.

JP is right in his assertion that solipsism is a simpler reality than an actual physical universe because it does not accept that anything is real except the "mind" which is a disembodied thing, in the solipsist reality, that has no nead of a brain to perceive anything. No interactions, no system, and no OS because not even the brain that contains the mind is considered provable.

I think we all agree that it is not a valuable reality and certainly proves nothing.

Rhizo

[Jon Paul]

@ Jon Paul,

You didn't address my last post to you earlier in this thread, in response to you:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-1531-pos...l#pid25352

EvF

I did.. I'll quote my reply:

There is no evidence for philsophical zombies either.

Philosophical zombies is not a claim which requires evidence on the point of minds, in contradistinction to the claim that we do have minds.

For everything that philosophical zombies predict of human behaviour is verifiable and holds true.

Whereas, the idea that others have minds is an unverifiable presupposition based on personal inclination to that generalisation.

There is merely a failure of evidence for the consciousness of others. This doesn't mean they're philosophical zombies.

Of course it doesn't prove it, because it's not a claim which needs to be proven, as it is readily verifiable that what philosophical zombies does predict does occur. That does not prove the exclusion of mind; but it proves that postulating mind in others is unnecessary, is to claim more than needed to explain the same fact, and the only really important thing - is unverifiable.

It's far more likely that they are the same as me but...the reason why I can't detect their consciousness....is that I'm not them!.

Now you are going into the nature of ontology. The problem is that there is no reason to assume the possibility for the ontogenesis of a conscious mind to begin with, if we are to proceed from general naturalistic principles. So that under naturalism, in fact, your own conscious mind is a surprise rather than something you should expect and predict. And importantly, it is externally unverifiable, and only an internal surprise.

- I would suscribe to the view of these two quotes. There is evidence of consciousness, but not that it is anything but the brain...because, there is evidence of own belief in consciousness, and the workings of the brain itself, and no further. My brain gets totally effected when it gets effected physically. As far as I know consciousness is nothing special.

Daniel Dennet doesn't address the points I've raised, and I have already read much of what he has to say about consciousness and qualia, which largely adds absolutely nothing to our understanding of these phenomena, except an introduction of some new semantics.

If Philosophical Zombies are behaviorally indistinguisable then they must include consciousness, because if you strip the consciousness off you change the behavior.

There is no need to "strip consciousness off", unless you already expect consciousness to occur. And you have no neutral source in naturalistic principles for that expectation, only your own qualitative experience of consciousness, which, insofar as it is not itself predicted by any generative principles, and is externally unverifiable, does not mandate such a prediction in general, from the causal mechanism (brain) which can be explained as a philosophical zombie just as well, to the internal ontology (conscious mind) which is externally unverifiable and unpredictable by methodological principles.

---

---

No, it doesn't because I am not arguing what the solipsist believes I am arguing that a universe that is virtual or dreamed involves more complexity than one that is real.

That's fine. But that doesn't address solipsism, since that is not solipsism, and as a consequence, you are refuting the simplicity of an ontology which is not solipsistic, and as a consequence, you fail to refute the simplicity of solipsism.

I am NOT INTERESTED in arguing any of your crap about solipsism ... it wasn't necessary to argue when we were discussing virtualisation/dreaming/real vs. unreal before, it isn't necessary now! You are using it as a shield!

I couldn't care less what some whacked up bunch of nutfuckers believe!

The concern is not the solipsists, but rather how we know they are wrong, which is the only important issue here.

No, the key point is that YOU are wrong when you claim that an unreal world (supposedly indistinguishable form the real one) is equally or less complex than the real one ... this is not true (for reason previously supplied)!

No, the realist acknowledge reality! Using phrases such as "ontological reality" is just jumped up metaphysical hyper-bollocks ... it is utterly unnecessary to the conversation (as evidenced by the fact that it wasn't necessary before in this particular piece of the conversation) and I suspect you use them as something to retreat behind, an attempt to confuse your opponents by ducking behind philosophical complexities and language!

I certainly don't. Solipsism is a claim with ontological and epistemological implications, just like realism. Ontology is the study of the nature of being, and epistemology is the study of the nature of knowing. Now there's nothing you don't know.

Don't you get it, moron? I couldn't care less if solipsism were origami on toast ... I don't give a shit about the ontological and epistemological consequences of anything, I think it (all your philosophical and metaphysical posturing) is nothing but psychobabble!

You know you can carry on this stupid word game all you want but I will not play ... your philosophy (specifically your metaphysical and meta-ontological crap) is bollocks and I will continue to consider it so until such time as you meet the challenge I have already set you! Meet that successfully and I will play your game, until then give us a break!

Right, and I will ignore you until you come up with real arguments instead of complaints over words you don't like.

Yet you continue! And no, you can't, because there is no getting away from the fact that you are using your philosophical twaddle as a shield to prevent others arguing against you!

So let me get this straight. The mind exists, and that which it experiences is itself the mind and not a part of the mind nor a system within the mind?

The mind exists, and the mind is the reality and entity which contains all conscious experience and sense-data which is consciously experienced. Nothing is known to exist except the mind.

Rubbish! Whilst I accept the mind views the real universe indirectly (it has to because none of our external sensory organs have a whit of intelligence whilst the brain cannot view directly) and, as such, the brain almost certainly operates through an internally supported mental model of its universe it is stupid to suggest the brain knows nothing of the universe in which it exists ... we are intelligent beings and are capable of interpreting what we "know" to operate within our universe.

Kyu

---

In short, you are not interested in dealing with the fact that solipsism is much simpler than realism, and proposes much less complexity, yet is empirically the same.

---

I think we all agree that it is not a valuable reality and certainly proves nothing.

Of course, I am not a solipsist either.

But the inabillity to point to a rational reason for the rejection of solipsism (on LukeMC and Kyus part) and his insistence on the same reductionism and empricism which ultimately supports solipsism, does prove a point in regards to how we know theories to be true or false.

If we know solipsism to be false, then we don't know theories to be true or false based on their empirical equivalence or their level complexity.

And what I proposed long ago is that we know solipsism (and philosophical zombies) to be false, because the belief in reality and other minds is a properly basic knowledge, on par with the basic knowledge of our own conscious mind which is externally unverifiable, on par with our properly basic knowledge of God, which is externally unverifiable.

[LukeMC]

It does exist, as conscious experience in the mind. I never said it doesn't exist. I said that the solipsist makes no leap of faith to the idea that the conscious experience in his mind represents a reality that exists independently, outside of the mind. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, in his mind, exactly as conscious experience of sense-data. It means that that sense-data does not represent a reality outside of the mind.

Is this getting us anywhere? I'm sure I've been here before.

[Rhizomorph13]

And what I proposed long ago is that we know solipsism (and philosophical zombies) to be false, because the belief in reality and other minds is a properly basic knowledge, on par with the basic knowledge of our own conscious mind which is externally unverifiable, on par with our properly basic knowledge of God, which is externally unverifiable.

So god exists because you have had personal, unverifiable, experience with him? Fair enough, as with Bigfoot and UFO sightings, but I will withhold my vote for god until there is more proof or my own personal revelation that isn't easily chalked up to delusion.

Rhizo

[Jon Paul]

So god exists because you have had personal, unverifiable, experience with him? Fair enough, as with Bigfoot and UFO sightings, but I will withhold my vote for god until there is more proof or my own personal revelation that isn't easily chalked up to delusion.

Well, I don't have knowledge of Bigfoot or UFOs, so it would be irrational for me to accept those beliefs on grounds of an experience - when it is simply not there in my case.

There would be no way to exclude a priori that some people have experience that would justify belief in it. But I could not make a positive affirmation of it either, since I don't know it to be true.

Though they are not actual foundational (basic) beliefs, which excludes them from the possibility of being properly basic as is theism.

[Rhizomorph13]

JP,

Come again?

Here is my question reiterated:

Do you assert that God exists because you have had personal, unverifiable, experience with him?

See if you can answer this questions in under 3 letters.

Thanks,
Rhizo

[Jon Paul]

Do you assert that God exists because you have had personal, unverifiable, experience with him?

If you mean exclusively, then no. I believe I have two kinds of knowledge of God.

One is verifiable, rational propositional evidence that establishes the existence of God as highly probably, regardless of other kinds of knowledge. In other words, rational arguments for Gods existence.

But I also believe that belief in God wholly aside from the propositional evidence is warranted by properly basic belief.

Basic beliefs are another word for foundational beliefs. Basic beliefs are beliefs that are believed without being inferred from any other belief or evidence. But they are only properly basic if the belief is either self-evident or incorrigible for the person who holds them. "I think therefore I am" is an example of a basic belief, because it is not inferred from any other belief or evidence, and properly basic belief, because it is both incorrigible and self-evident to the person who holds it.

That is essentially the same kind of belief, as the belief that you have or are a conscious mind, and is properly basic, though externally unverifiable because philosophical zombies are externally and empirically equivalent and no means of demonstration exist to distinguish a conscious person over a philosophical zombie. The belief that reality exists is properly basic, though internally unverifiable, because solipsism fits the same empirical data and with less complexity. The belief that God exists is properly basic, though externally unverifiable, because no means of demonstration exist to externally determine whether you have had a revelation from God, except an equivalent revelation from God.

[Rhizomorph13]

JP,

So personal experience AND the cosmological argument for the existence of god? Ok, I think I understand what you are saying. Everything appears to have a cause so there must be a first cause. What is wrong with "The Big Bang" as a first cause? Why the extra step of a non-contigent being starting it all?

Rhizo