Non-existence

[Jon Paul]

I think that the burden of proof would be on the strange idea that somehow I was the only one conscious.

You are shifiting the burden of proof then, for you don't have actual evidence of other minds.

I only have direct evidence of my own consciousness...but which is really more probable? Them being philosophical zombies as you say, being indentical in every way except not conscious...

On a naturalist mode of thinking, what is more probable is philosophical zombies, such that the real miracle which defies what you can predict a priori from general principles is that you know you have a mind.

There is no evidence to suggest that consciousness is anything more than the workings of the brain.

There is no evidence to suggest that consciousness exists, from general principles of naturalism. Only from conscious experience itself, only from properly basic knowledge.

When your brain is messed with, your consciousness is.

You can only say that your own consciousness changes when your own brain is messed with. What you probably mean is that peoples behaviour changes according to the changes in their brain. But that would be the case if people were philosophical zombies without minds, as well.

And I see no reason to believe in philosophical zombies

You don't have to believe in philosophical zombies, because the notion of other people as philosophical zombies proposes less than the notion of other minds. What you have to believe in is, then, other minds.

For me to be a total exception and every one else to be philosophical zombies I find to be highly improbable.

But what is improbable is exactly that you have a consciousness at all, because that does not proceed from any general principle of naturalism.

What does proceed from general principles of naturalism is philosophical zombies.

Just like a person has knowledge of Gods existence properly basic to his own personal and qualitative experience and knowledge.

Personal experience is not evidence of God. Unless you can show me that it somehow is.

Then your personal knowledge and experience that you are a conscious mind, is not evidence that you are a conscious mind, either.

For me to be the only one that is 'actually consciousness' when the other around 6 billion people on the planet perfectly emulate it,

But that is exactly what the notion of philosophical zombies predicts, that everyone should behave exactly as they do but without any conscious experience of it in the sense of being a conscious mind.

I consider to be utterly ridiculous. It's not impossible no, I muse over the idea, yes. But I need evidence that I'm some bizarre exception merely because 'I', 'know me'.

Again you shift the burden of evidence. You can't demand evidence that others are not conscious, when you have given no evidence that they are.

Unrefuted to you. I don't know exactly to what you're referring to, but all I've seen is you go on about how the existence of 'God' is required for the existence of 'objective truth'.

That is the TAG, which is merely one of the arguments I presented. All arguments are presented in their general outlines within the first 3 pages of my thread, and more elaborately in the course of the entire thread. The TAG, which you address, happens to be the non-evidential one. The evidential one, from potentiality/contingency, you entirely ignored, which is very ... "convenient" ... since you are obviously of an evidentialist mindset which can't comprehend epistemology, yet you chose to address exactly the epistemology.

---

Even if you assume YOU are the one doing the dreaming it would mean that the virtual/dream scenario is pointless and no one else was real! Why bother? I don't think you are claiming that though! I think you want to have a hosted scenario with the host being non-existent which brings us back to mental masturbation.

No. All I have said is that proposing only a mind (which is all we have real evidence of) is proposing less complexity than proposing a reality outside of the mind.

I have not said anything about which scenario is true or false.

---

How can you say that the sensation I feel in my foot is purely in my mind? I experience the sensation of touch where my foot is located in the same way I experience the sensation of thoughts where my mind is located. They're both a physical sensation and experience. Why is it not the case that our bodies are the only thing that is real, and our minds are merely an illusion generated by the body? (As opposed to minds being real and body being illusion).

That is sense data. Sense data does not equal sense data representing a reality outside of your mind.

What criterion do you use to choose between these experiences? "I think therefore I am" could just as easily have been "I feel therefore I am". Both are result of physical sensation experienced in a particular area of what we understand to be the body. I would posit that both must be real unless you can state in greater detail how one would choose which experiences to trust as really being.

I think therefore I am is a reductionist view of human being, but there is nothing in that phrase which contradicts solipsism, since in solipsism, your mind actually is.

If you do accept this, it doesn't damage your argument. You'll just have to say "experience confined to the mind/body" instead of just the mind. And I understand what you are saying to Kyuu. But if you are to deny the senses that tell you there is an objective reality outside of your mind, then how can you trust the thoughts and decisions that led you to the conclusion that there is probably no such objective world? Or are your thoughts more reliable than your senses, perhaps?

I never concluded that "there is no objective world", only that proposing such a world outside of your mind, is proposing more complexity, not less, than proposing only your conscious experience (and nothing more).

And a final question, just to make absolutely sure that you're sick of me, do you live your life under the assumption that everything outside of your mind is an illusion and could change at any moment? (General curiosity).

No. I believe reality does exist outside of our minds. I am only disagreeing about how we can know that it does.

Going by mere evidence, reductionism and skepticism, solipsism is the simplest, most reduced form of affirmation of our existence.

Proposing more than the mind is proposing more complexity than is warranted by empirical data, as the empirical sense-data do not require to be actual entities outside your mind, but only require to be affirmed as data we have conscious experience of.

Speculating as to their origin is contrary to absolute skepticism and reductionism, and not warranted by empirii, but only by properly basic beliefs in your epistemic structure on par with "my mind exists", then "reality exists" and "God exists", all things usually justified by properly basic beliefs from personal/subjective qualitative experience and knowledge, even when no evidence explicitly requires them independently of the personal/subjective qualitative experience and knowledge.