Non-existence

[LukeMC]

There is no evidence that the world exists as a solid or permanent plane. We may be no more that an advanced computer programme or an elaborate dream-or something else entirely. There is simply no evidence to suggest that the universe we inhabit is in any way the 'real' or original world. In other worlds, without evidence of the existence of any substantial world-form we must conclude that the world may indeed be an illusion.

Ah, solipsism, my old friend. So we meet again.

When I think, I tend to feel more like I'm experiencing these thoughts than not. For me, that is the basis of everything. "I think, therefore I am", in whatever form I may take. From here, I can either conclude that the outside world is real or that the outside world is not real. However, even if it is an illusion, it is still real in the sense that I am experiencing it and it is there in some form or another. Perhaps it would be more fitting to say that my experience of this universe is real. Now I am left with a decision. Is this universe real in a final, objective sense, making me an agent of this universe like everybody else, or is this universe a figment of imagination, a computer simulation, a dream? I just use Occam's razor to deduce a null hypothesis. Lets stick with what seems to work for the time being (the universe is all that is) and be prepared to change our perspective in light of new evidence. If such evidence is impossible to come by, sod it. We'll get on just fine.

I don't think Dadga is offering an argument so much as he is offering a thought game. What he says is certainly true. We indeed must conclude that the universe may be an illusion, but not necessarily that it is an illusion. For the time being, I'm an agnostic universist (de facto) but am willing to change my mind if I'm ever given reason to believe something more complex and grand is going on behind the scenes.

I know, I've added nothing new to the table. Blatent dismissal won't be taken to heart.

[Kyuuketsuki]

And your entire argument ignores the hosting complexities that ALL (without exception) these vacuous scenarios entail ... I am still considering my reply to Archy.

It doesn't. Postulating the reality and world of our qualitative, subjective sense experience to be an actually ontologically independently existing reality outside of your mind is something far more complex and far more extensive than not doing so. Ultimate reductionism reduces the ontological to the epistemic realm, and leads to absolute skepticism, and solipsism.

Yes it does!

It's a simple enough concept but I will have to delve into IT for an analogy ... if I have a windows server then I host it on physical hardware. We have the server OS and we have the hardware. Ignoring power and connected network which would exist in both scenarios you have 2 layers of complexity.

If I virtualise it ... I have to simulate the hardware and I have to support that simulation. Therefore we now have effectively 4 layers of complexity ... the OS, the simulated machine, the hosting OS and the physical hardware the hosting OS is running on. Some of those layers can be more simple but the whole, of necessity, must be MORE complex than the primary simulation because it NOT ONLY HAS TO RUN THE SIMULATION IT HAS TO RUN ITSELF!!!!!!

Even if you postulate that the host is someone dreaming that host still has the biological equivalent of hardware and operating system so the same applies ... this isn't rocket science!

Kyu

[Jon Paul]

If I virtualise it ... I have to simulate the hardware and I have to support that simulation. Therefore we now have effectively 4 layers of complexity ... the OS, the simulated machine, the hosting OS and the physical hardware the hosting OS is running on. Some of those layers can be more simple but the whole, of necessity, must be MORE complex than the primary simulation because it NOT ONLY HAS TO RUN THE SIMULATION IT HAS TO RUN ITSELF!!!!!!

Well, that is completely different from what I said.

Because you are positing an ontological reality outside of your mind, by this analogy of actual things which are responsible for the experience and consciousness of your mind.

Whereas, what I said in the post you quoted was merely that speculating even to that length entails positing an ontological reality which is independent of your mind, in trying to explain your sense experience. And that is more complex than not doing so. Not doing so simply stops all speculation and makes no positive affirmation that anything exists which explains your experience, beyond your own mind.

[Kyuuketsuki]

If I virtualise it ... I have to simulate the hardware and I have to support that simulation. Therefore we now have effectively 4 layers of complexity ... the OS, the simulated machine, the hosting OS and the physical hardware the hosting OS is running on. Some of those layers can be more simple but the whole, of necessity, must be MORE complex than the primary simulation because it NOT ONLY HAS TO RUN THE SIMULATION IT HAS TO RUN ITSELF!!!!!!

Well, that is completely different from what I said.

You think I care if it's complete different from what *you* said???? You think I give a rats arse about your metaphysical posturing? Seriously? You and I don't speak the same language, we talk past each other and the only reason I keep on at you is, I suppose, because I can ... I don't understand your mind and genuinely don't want to, you think in ways that make absolutely no sense to me (not in the sense that I can't understand it, more that I don't get it ... in a philosophical sense if you wish). Oh, don't make the mistake of thinking that implies you are right, it doesn't I'm advancing the only point that matters to me ... that a virtual universe opf any description would necessarily be more complex than one that was real and judging from your continued retreat into hyper-bollocks I consider my point well made, you don't appear to be able to deal with it.

Because you are positing an ontological reality outside of your mind, by this analogy of actual things which are responsible for the experience and consciousness of your mind.

No ... let me say it to you again, since you are apparently having some problems understanding (I'll list it point-wise to make it a little clearer):

• If you have a scenario (and I likened this to a computer and it's operating system) it has two basic layers of complexity, the real universe (physical or hardware) and my view of it (my mind or an OS). That is 2 levels of complexity.
  
• If that scenario is virtualised it needs, somewhere, something or someone to host it (to run the scenario, to make it work correctly etc. etc.) and that support has to have its own operating system or mind PLUS its own physical support. That's another 2 levels ... even if you assume (as I'm sure you would) that it is unsupported it's still 1 level.

In other words, in order to virtualise our universe, either as a dream or a simulation (regardless of whether we can detect anything or not) someone or something has to be or to build something more complex ... a 4 (at best for you a 3) layer model because, even if the support layers were less complex in themselves they are still supporting the exact same level of complexity of our universe therefore IN TOTO, we have a more complex scenario.

As I said before the whole virtualised system must necessarily be more complex than the basic physical universe because it not only has to run the simulation it has to run itself!!!!!!

IOW, bringing it back to my original point, a physical universe is simpler therefore an assumption that I the universe is real is more logical than not.

Whereas, what I said in the post you quoted was merely that speculating even to that length entails positing an ontological reality which is independent of your mind, in trying to explain your sense experience. And that is more complex than not doing so. Not doing so simply stops all speculation and makes no positive affirmation that anything exists which explains your experience, beyond your own mind.

Exactly how does that deal in any way, shape or forum with the point I have raised?

Kyu

[Jon Paul]

Because you are positing an ontological reality outside of your mind, by this analogy of actual things which are responsible for the experience and consciousness of your mind.

No ... let me say it to you again, since you are apparently having some problems understanding (I'll list it point-wise to make it a little clearer):

• If you have a scenario (and I likened this to a computer and it's operating system) it has two basic layers of complexity, the real universe (physical or hardware) and my view of it (my mind or an OS). That is 2 levels of complexity.

But that scenario begs the question of a primary, independent ontological reality (the real universe/"physical or hardware"), with "your view of it/your mind or OS" being merely a side-thing.

Exactly how does that deal in any way, shape or forum with the point I have raised?

The point you have raised begs the question of an ontological reality outside the mind (physical universe/hardware in contradistinction to software/mind). The point I have raised is that postulating the reality and world of our qualitative, subjective sense experience to be an actually ontologically independently existing reality outside of your mind is something far more complex and far more extensive than not doing so.

[LukeMC]

The point I have raised is that postulating the reality and world of our qualitative, subjective sense experience to be an actually ontologically independently existing reality outside of your mind is something far more complex and far more extensive than not doing so.

But I experience things outside of my mind. My foot isn't in my mind. My senses extend further than my thoughts...

[Kyuuketsuki]

No ... let me say it to you again, since you are apparently having some problems understanding (I'll list it point-wise to make it a little clearer):

• If you have a scenario (and I likened this to a computer and it's operating system) it has two basic layers of complexity, the real universe (physical or hardware) and my view of it (my mind or an OS). That is 2 levels of complexity.

But that scenario begs the question of a primary, independent ontological reality (the real universe/"physical or hardware"), with "your view of it/your mind or OS" being merely a side-thing.

No it doesn't, it's a straight forward side-by-side comparison of a virtual scenario compared to a physical one.

Exactly how does that deal in any way, shape or forum with the point I have raised?

The point you have raised begs the question of an ontological reality outside the mind (physical universe/hardware in contradistinction to software/mind). The point I have raised is that postulating the reality and world of our qualitative, subjective sense experience to be an actually ontologically independently existing reality outside of your mind is something far more complex and far more extensive than not doing so.

No, it doesn't (it doesn't require anyone to drop to questions of ontological anything) ... see above!

Kyu

[Jon Paul]

No it doesn't, it's a straight forward side-by-side comparison of a virtual scenario compared to a physical one.

And it postulates the existence of something outside of the mind, both in what you call virtual and physical scenarios.

* If that scenario is virtualised it needs, somewhere, something or someone to host it (to run the scenario, to make it work correctly etc. etc.) and that support has to have its own operating system or mind PLUS its own physical support. That's another 2 levels ... even if you assume (as I'm sure you would) that it is unsupported it's still 1 level.

What I am proposing is not a virtual simulated scenario, because there is no simulator and no simulated thing, but simply the experience of the mind and no further positive claims.

No, it doesn't (it doesn't require anyone to drop to questions of ontological anything) ... see above!

Not "to drop questions of ontological anything", no, which is not what I said.

---

But I experience things outside of my mind. My foot isn't in my mind. My senses extend further than my thoughts...

Of course we experience things which seem to be outside of our mind. The question is whether we positively claim that experience to be an experience of an actually ontologically independently existing reality outside of your mind, or whether we reduce it to be an experience confined to your own mind. There is more complexity in the former case, and less complexity and more simplicity in the latter case.

[Edwardo Piet]

You have no evidence of any other consciousness. You have only your own conscious experience.

I think that the burden of proof would be on the strange idea that somehow I was the only one conscious. 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...or simply them being consciouus too and myself not being some sort of bizarre exception, and being the only actual 'conscious' brain (however 'conscious' you have to be to be 'fully conscious' that is...how do you even measure that?)

You are not even aware if others have a consciousness, or are philosophical zombies, with the exact mechanisms of brain chemistry as you, and therefore mechanically human behaviour, just like you, but simply no conscious mind.

Such a belief would be making a gratujitous exception though me thinks. If they are physically and biochemically identical, why on earth would I be an exception with 'consciousness'.

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

When your brain is messed with, your consciousness is. And I see no reason to believe in philosophical zombies, because the fact I know what I'm thinking is not evidence that I'm 'special'. I obviously dont' know what others are thinking because I'm not psychic...But I certainly have no logical reason to believe that I am somehow 'special' - of course I am only conscious of myself.

If others appear the same I think it's a bizarre conceit that I am an exception and others aren't the shame. Muse on the idea of philosophical zombies, sure. It's possible, sure...but why on earth would I be a total exception and they all be an illusion when in every other way their brain more or less seems pretty much the same?

Brain chemistry would be present in philosophical zombies just as well, and it would be the very source of the mechanical human behaviour of that philosophical zombie. All that would not be present is a conscious mind.

For me to be a total exception and every one else to be philosophical zombies I find to be highly improbable. Their brains are more or less pretty much the same like I said (they're human brains, etc) -

- the fact I'm aware of my own conciousness is not evidence that others aren't conscious. However, the fact that they completely emulate such conscious behavior I see to be at least very strong indirect evidence that they are.

You still haven't given pointed out reasons why you aren't yourself a philosophical zombie, a wholly mechanical and unconscious product of brain chemistry.

I am aware of my consciousnes and are otherwise the same. I cannot be aware of their consciousness because they're not them. I know of no evidence that they wouldn't be the same. I expect evidence for it to be different, because the fact they completely emulate consciousness means that I would need evidence that I am somehow some sort of bizarre exception...merely becasue I'm only aware of my own consciousness (and I mean...DUH!).

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. And that entirely personal...experience can give credence to the notion of a supernatural being that created the universe actually existing.

You have no evidence others aren't philosophical zombies, because you have no knowledge of their conscious experience, only of their brain chemistry which might as well produce a philosophical zombie acting mechanically without a conscious mind.

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

I can, and have done so in my own thread, where I have presented two arguments for Gods existence which remain unrefuted.

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'. And I think...so what? Truth doesn't need to be objective...and not only does it not...but there's absolutely know evidence (at least that I know of) of any absolute objective truth anyways. And nor is there for God - I haven't seen any actual evidence that gives credence to the notion of a supernatural being that created the universe actually existing.

So since there's no evidence for absolute objective truth, I don't see how you can use such an argument to back God up. And even if there was - I still don't see. Where do you actually give evidence to 'God' actually exsting?

Maybe I've failed to refute your arguments for God because I fail to see how you are in anyway displaying any actual arguments for God, or any that are actually any evidence, or indeed, any that you are actually seriously suggesting to display the truth of 'God' actually existing.

Or maybe it's another thread with a different argument you speak of? In which case you can perhaps kindly direct me? No I don't for one minute expect you to somehow display God - but my mind is open

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

No it doesn't, it's a straight forward side-by-side comparison of a virtual scenario compared to a physical one.

And it postulates the existence of something outside of the mind, both in what you call virtual and physical scenarios.

Point taken (I failed to read your response properly) however my scenario deals with that entirely ... the "outside" you refer to becomes an essential part of the virtual scenario (the host mind/OS).

* If that scenario is virtualised it needs, somewhere, something or someone to host it (to run the scenario, to make it work correctly etc. etc.) and that support has to have its own operating system or mind PLUS its own physical support. That's another 2 levels ... even if you assume (as I'm sure you would) that it is unsupported it's still 1 level.

What I am proposing is not a virtual simulated scenario, because there is no simulator and no simulated thing, but simply the experience of the mind and no further positive claims.

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, it doesn't (it doesn't require anyone to drop to questions of ontological anything) ... see above!

Not "to drop questions of ontological anything", no, which is not what I said.

You want to bring metaphysical reasoning into everythign ... I consider metaphysics pointless bollocks and will continue to do so until the day it actually proves something! As I said before ... please feel free to point to something accepted by the vast majority of scientists, academicians and intelligent theologians (a distinction I make because of the theological shysters of this world, Billy Graham, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and their ilk).

Kyu