- #71
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
I don't mean to be dense. I'm not sure I've understood your post. Where is this evidence?
In summary, the argument discussed in the conversation is that the existence of God can be proven through the understanding that our whole understanding of existence is based on our senses and reasoning, which are created by the mind. This suggests that the mind had universal knowledge and artistic creativity before sensing the order of the universe. Additionally, the fact that we can communicate and compare our perceptions with others shows that there is an objective material world that exists independently of our mind. The argument also addresses the concept of essence and form, and the idea that the material world may be a manifestation of the spiritual.
I don't mean to be dense. I'm not sure I've understood your post. Where is this evidence?
- #72
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
Well, I'm not sure I understood Huesdens post and I'm not sure I'm understanding you either. If you're going to enter a philosophical discussion that questions the quality of our knowledge obtained through perception, you cannot then choose a side due to the fact that we have knowledge. This is exactly what I was pointing out in my first post. This is like asking the guy who robbed your house to give you a ride to the police department to file the report.
Last edited:
- #73
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Perception
How do we escape the perception of our own minds? There's no way, we can't! Even our awareness of the world is dependent upon it. And yet that isn't to say the world doesn't exist, not in the least, just that we can only acknowledge it through "our perception."
So it's through our perception, which is internal, that we determine what is real, both on the outside and, on "the inside." Hmm... Maybe we should consider it a gift?
How do we escape the perception of our own minds? There's no way, we can't! Even our awareness of the world is dependent upon it. And yet that isn't to say the world doesn't exist, not in the least, just that we can only acknowledge it through "our perception."
So it's through our perception, which is internal, that we determine what is real, both on the outside and, on "the inside." Hmm... Maybe we should consider it a gift?
- #74
CJames
- 369
- 1
Hi lifegazer. This is a great summary of your hypothesis, but again provides nothing conclusive.
I agree with the assertions following this, stating that every individual's mind must present observations in a way that is comprehensible to the observer.
I agree with everything proceeding and including this point, although I wouldn't necessarily say it is logic that is linking the ideas in every case, I agree with the assertions up to this point. Indeed, this is all we can know. You can't proceed forward from this point.
I agree with the assertions following this, stating that every individual's mind must present observations in a way that is comprehensible to the observer.
This comes from nowhere. You can't prove this assertion. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary. Infants do not understand their perseptions at all when they are born, they are clueless. Only by a process of trial and error can the mind finally present a comprehensible picture of the universe.
Even had the previous conclusion been correct, this doesn't follow logically. Why, for instance, couldn't each mind simply be aware of a set of rules upon creation? Or why assume that any of the living entities sharing these "laws of mind" even exist, that they aren't the creation of your mind? Since all these multiple conclusions exist, the whole thing's a non-sequiter, as Tom said.
- #75
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
The least we could do Tom, is acknowledge that other people exist. Who are both without and within. Of course I may not be willing to take it any further than that, only because the rest is not readily explainable: as most people are externalized and don't see things in the same sense.
Reality has always been there ... but "its perception" begins with, and ends with, "our minds."
Then you're saying reality is abstract by the same definition. Yes, man is in the Mind of God, in contemplation of "the God" within his own mind ...
- #76
heusdens
- 1,738
- 0
Some conclusions to the 'hypothese' of Lifegazer.
There have been a lot of remarks on where the hypothese goes wrong.
Let us start with his basic premise. He states that he has a mind, through which he perceives the outside world (which in the case of lifegazer does not exist, but only the reflections of them, in what he calls 'mind', but which he has yet to proof to exist).
Where in the world did he proof this first premise, that he has a mind in the first place? Where? Has he explained us that? Not in the least! We are merely asked to believe that assumption. And no matter how many times he testifies to us, and it even is acknowledged by others, al this does not constitute any proof whatsoever.
We are just asked to 'assume' he has a mind. We don't know however what mind is. Although it is certain that without his body, his mind (whatever that may be) will cease to be. Nowhere in the world we find - what is called - a mind (but has yet to be proven to exist) that worked without a body. Nothing at all we can have evidence of and relate to.
Oh, for certain. We know LG must be a person around somewhere. With a body and a brain. But all we can testify for, is material stuff and properties. We can hear him. We can see him. Touch him. But we do not see his mind, only his actions. We know that up there, in his brain, the world is reflected upon, that somewhere in his brain and neuron system, an image is made of the world he perceives, and he is able to make sensible actions upon his awareness of that reflections. But that just means there is a very sophistocated and very complex machine in there, that is able of transforming the input signals into output signals. Whatever you may call the process that is going on in there, all we can see and all we can know about, are their outside forms, shapes and properties. We can know, through experiments, about what part of his brain is responsible for what kind of functions. But even if we have a complete description of all his interior workings, a map of the wiring of his billions of neurons, and all the properties of all the neurons, and nerves in there, there is no way in which we can say that there is a 'mind' in there. Cause all we can testify for are the material properties we find.
So how does he know, he has a 'mind' in the first place? Or, let him in first instance give us a full and complete description of what the mind is, in terms of things we already know about, the material stuff.
Therefore, we have to refuse Mr Lifegazers hypothese built up around that central and dogmatic premise, because he has no way of prooving that premise. He may vibrate as many molecules in the air as he likes, and sent around as many bit pulses over the entire internet as he likes, or perform whatever other actions he likes, but at no time he is able of convincingly proof us that he has a mind in the first place. His mind is just an imagination he has, not a real thing.
The fact that he is able to testify that he has one, only means that his internal wiring of all his functions, do not make it possible for him to say something else then that. But that knowledge, does not come from reasonal conclusions, nor from the outside world information and conclusions made upon them. In fact, this knowledge he does not really has, but he is given the impression that he has that knowledge, because of internal functions that do not permit him to testify this in any other way.
There have been a lot of remarks on where the hypothese goes wrong.
Let us start with his basic premise. He states that he has a mind, through which he perceives the outside world (which in the case of lifegazer does not exist, but only the reflections of them, in what he calls 'mind', but which he has yet to proof to exist).
Where in the world did he proof this first premise, that he has a mind in the first place? Where? Has he explained us that? Not in the least! We are merely asked to believe that assumption. And no matter how many times he testifies to us, and it even is acknowledged by others, al this does not constitute any proof whatsoever.
We are just asked to 'assume' he has a mind. We don't know however what mind is. Although it is certain that without his body, his mind (whatever that may be) will cease to be. Nowhere in the world we find - what is called - a mind (but has yet to be proven to exist) that worked without a body. Nothing at all we can have evidence of and relate to.
Oh, for certain. We know LG must be a person around somewhere. With a body and a brain. But all we can testify for, is material stuff and properties. We can hear him. We can see him. Touch him. But we do not see his mind, only his actions. We know that up there, in his brain, the world is reflected upon, that somewhere in his brain and neuron system, an image is made of the world he perceives, and he is able to make sensible actions upon his awareness of that reflections. But that just means there is a very sophistocated and very complex machine in there, that is able of transforming the input signals into output signals. Whatever you may call the process that is going on in there, all we can see and all we can know about, are their outside forms, shapes and properties. We can know, through experiments, about what part of his brain is responsible for what kind of functions. But even if we have a complete description of all his interior workings, a map of the wiring of his billions of neurons, and all the properties of all the neurons, and nerves in there, there is no way in which we can say that there is a 'mind' in there. Cause all we can testify for are the material properties we find.
So how does he know, he has a 'mind' in the first place? Or, let him in first instance give us a full and complete description of what the mind is, in terms of things we already know about, the material stuff.
Therefore, we have to refuse Mr Lifegazers hypothese built up around that central and dogmatic premise, because he has no way of prooving that premise. He may vibrate as many molecules in the air as he likes, and sent around as many bit pulses over the entire internet as he likes, or perform whatever other actions he likes, but at no time he is able of convincingly proof us that he has a mind in the first place. His mind is just an imagination he has, not a real thing.
The fact that he is able to testify that he has one, only means that his internal wiring of all his functions, do not make it possible for him to say something else then that. But that knowledge, does not come from reasonal conclusions, nor from the outside world information and conclusions made upon them. In fact, this knowledge he does not really has, but he is given the impression that he has that knowledge, because of internal functions that do not permit him to testify this in any other way.
Last edited:
- #77
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
It'll never fly ... so long as you remain "fixated" on material things.
- #78
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 5,584
- 24
I don't really understand your objection, but let me see if I can explain myself a little better.
First, we know that our perceptions register in our minds. From this, I can conclude either that I am looking "out there" or that I am imagining the whole thing.
Second, along comes another person. I talk to that person, and find that she has the same kinds of experiences that I do. From this, I can conclude either that we are both looking "out there" or that I am just imagining her, too. The first option leads me to conclude that there is an universe that we both live in, and the second leads me to solipsism, which is not even internally consistent, so I reject it. Having rejected solipsism then, I conclude that she and I are both part of a larger reality.
Third, I know that my mind is disjoint from her mind because we do not share the same thoughts. So if I am to cling to idealism, I have to fabricate a "super mind" on the basis of--literally--absolutely nothing. Barring that, I accept that the larger reality is made up of the objects that obey the laws I observe them to obey.
Conclusion: I say that materialism is an appeal to knowledge, because it is certain that there is a reality that I am part of and that is larger than myself, and I can know things about it. I say that idealism is an appeal to ignorance because it requires one to believe in a layer of reality beyond what I percieve for absolutely no reason.
- #79
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 5,584
- 24
I don't understand you at all.
What do you mean "both without and within"? Without and within what, exactly?
So you keep saying. And, no one disagrees. However, I tried to make it clear that the problem of other minds makes the view "all of reality is in my mind" untenable. I don't understand why you won't move beyond this point.
No, not at all. I'm saying that god is an abstract object, whereas the computer I'm typing this message on is a concrete object. I don't know how you concluded otherwise.
This makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying that I am in the mind of a differential equation when I am in contemplation of solving it.
- #80
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Once somebody or something "registers" with your perception, then yes, it becomes part of your "collective experience" as a whole (which is within).
Because my perception, which is clearly in charge of how I view things, tells me not to acknowledge anything that doesn't go along with what's already been perceived. Meaning I don't do things contrary to what I already understand. And hence a sense of "personal accountability."
Everything is an abstraction to the "untrained mind." And yet once we perceive something, and understand it, then it no longer becomes an abstraction, even with God ... especially! In fact this is the whole crux of the matter, that determines whether one is able to believe in God or not. I mean this is it! ...
If you view the Universe in terms of being part of God's mind, i.e., whether we realize it or not, then we are all part of the "One Mind" Lifegazer is referring to. Beyond that, if we wish to contemplate our existence within our own minds which, is part of the "One Mind" as a whole, then that's entirely up to us.
Last edited:
- #81
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
Agreed.
I'm with you.
But why is it not internally consistent? Earlier you said you rejected it because it was absurd. You said it was absurd because you had "knowledge". Explain how this is inconsistent internally.
You lost me here. If your mind is creating all that you see, why would you think that you should be able to predict or know what the other imaginary people are like? Can you predict or understand your own dreams? No? Does this mean that a super mind is dreaming it for you?
- #82
heusdens
- 1,738
- 0
Solipsism is internally inconsistent, because it requires the world to exist within exactly and only one mind. If two people who both claim to be solipsist ever meet, then one of them can't be a solopsist. In reality, there is not one mind, but there are billions of minds.
Solipsisms has to be rejected for that reason. Idealism ultimately leads to that. They only can escape it by claiming there is a higher order mind, that of a Deity, for which there is and never can be any evidence. Such an artificial construct therefore also has to be rejected.
In reality though, whatever Idealists thinkers claim, all persons are materialist. If you step over a street and see an incoming bus, you will try to prevent being droven over. Nobody will at that time argue wether or not the bus really exists beyond the perceptions.
- #83
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
Hmm, this doesn't help Heusdens. You're relying on the material existence of another person to prove Materialism. This is not a good argument. Again, this is like asking the robber to give you a lift to the police station.
- #84
Lifegazer
I'm a bit disappointed here. I presented an argument for the existence of God. Of the 70+ responses, I can only find a few posts which have bothered to analyse the process of reasoning used in my initial-argument.
The bulk of this chat has been irrelevant. There are some people in here who think that the correct-method in which to deconstruct my argument is to present one of their own arguments for the defense of materialism. I say x = p; and they say "no, since w = b."! Hence avoiding a public-scrutiny of my own philosophy, by talking about their own.
Some of you have made valid points about my post. I'll try to address them all soon. But what's the point of presenting my own argument, if all you want to talk about is your own? C'mon guys. I want valid complaints about my own argument. Why's the reasoning-process flawed?
This is important. Because if I can clear-up the complaints, then you have to take me seriously.
Thanks. End of rant.
The bulk of this chat has been irrelevant. There are some people in here who think that the correct-method in which to deconstruct my argument is to present one of their own arguments for the defense of materialism. I say x = p; and they say "no, since w = b."! Hence avoiding a public-scrutiny of my own philosophy, by talking about their own.
Some of you have made valid points about my post. I'll try to address them all soon. But what's the point of presenting my own argument, if all you want to talk about is your own? C'mon guys. I want valid complaints about my own argument. Why's the reasoning-process flawed?
This is important. Because if I can clear-up the complaints, then you have to take me seriously.
Thanks. End of rant.
- #85
heusdens
- 1,738
- 0
Since other persons do exist, I think the point is made and is valid.
Or it would be that you can honestly testify to have never met any another person. If you do, I am sure you are a lier.
So the only position you can then logically still claim is that you think other people are not real people, but are only part of your own mind. This position is known as solipsism.
Suppose we have two people, A and B. A sees B as part of his mind, and not a real person. B sees A as part of his mind, and not a real person. These claims can't be both justified, so one of them is incorrect, because one has to accept (as put forward by materialism) BOTH people exist, and are separate beings, and not dependend on the mind itself. it is just recognizing the fact that the things we perceive and are aware of in our mind, correspond to material things, that exist seperately and independendly of our mind.
The way out that Idealists use is to claim that both persons are in fact "thoughts" of a higher being. This means, that also Idealism can not escape from recognizing an outer reality, while still refusing the claim that materialism has, about a material world, that exists independend of the mind.
The problem of this idea is however:
- That this higher being can never be witnessed directly, and has no explenation.
- How to conceive of individual people being just "thoughts" in a higher order mind, and not recognize they have separate minds.
etc.
Last edited:
- #86
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
Lol. What you're missing Heusdens is that no one has knowledge of both these claims. If all you know is through perception, you can only know that one of these is true. The other very well may not be true. I'm not telling you what I believe. I'm trying to get you to see that there's a reason this has been a philosphical topic for years. And that reason is that what you think you know, you cannot know. There is no way to argue for materialism. If you want to pick apart LG's theory of God, there are definitely much better ways than this.
- #87
Lifegazer
There's no reasoning here. If all observers share the same laws of physics, then those said observers are occupying a singular-reality.
I think Tom and CJames made a complaint about this, too. They think I make a leap to saying that existence is in One Mind. But if I first show that existence is 'Mind-ful' (read my first-post again; you'll see that I do in-fact show that existence is mind-ful before making the conclusion about 'one Mind' - in my penultimate-statement.), and then I observe that all perceptions are of one reality (one Law); then I am perfectly-placed to state that all perceptions exist within one Mind!
Your statement, on the other-hand, is an appeal to the senses. It basically asks how two different observers can exist within one Mind. My proof that this can happen is evident within your very-own awareness - in the same manner that two different entities can exist within your own mind, simultaneously.
This could be in imagination or dream. But even when you have a chat with someone, whilst 'awake', you cannot escape the fact that "the chat" has happened inside the mind - inside your senses, with the use of reason & emotion.
All interactions occur at the Mind-level. We cannot confirm any more than this. Hence, the details of my argument are worthy of address. Are you ever going to address that argument?
Last edited by a moderator:
- #88
Lifegazer
If I was to counter your 'neutral' complaints, people might take notice. What are these "better ways"? I want to shirk no question. Feel free to grill me.
- #89
heusdens
- 1,738
- 0
I think there are many ways of proving tyhe absurdity of LG's hypothese.
However, I do not agree on that statement, and I can explain why. Suppose in real life, two firmly believing solipsists ever meet, and they tell eacht other their beliefs/philosophical viewpoints.
Let us first look at this from the position of person A. He only sees other things as part of his mind of course. He does see person B, but does not conclude there is a real person/mind, like himself, there.
He can however discover, if he is listening carefully, that the other person makes the same claim about reality as he does. Same goes on from person's B point of view. At least this will make both persons doubt there belief.
The issue is that we can make this a theoretical debate. The issue on hand is purely theoretical, in that it would make no sense to even mention such a fictious position of person A and B having a solid trust in solipsism. The point is, why would these persons even be listening to each other, if they don't recognize each other as being a person, like themself, in the first place? All forms of communication would then be in vain. No real communication would be possible, communication would be just monologues.
Not that I think that every communication between persons in daily
life is that very well established. The issue is of course that we see daily many conversations and forms of communication going on, in which we can seriously doubt if there is any real communication. It sure seems as if people are talking much in a way, as if they are the sole person on earth, and don't even recognize the position and reality about the other. The world we live in today is full of chaos and miscommunication, which has much to do with the way we see the world.
I think the world would much benefit from a full acceptance of the reality of the world as it is, and not as how we think it is. Materialism is for that goal the only practical and theoretical basis.
- #90
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 5,584
- 24
No one here except heusdens and myself seems to understand what role the rejection of solipsism plays here. Consequently, we are spending way too much time on it. I'll make a longer post on why I reject solipsism later, but for now it is sufficient to make one point clear:
Just about every party involved here reject solipism!
That's right: me, huesdens, LG, we all reject it (except Iacchus).
The shedding of unnecessary (and unacceptable) assumptions goes something like this:
1. Either everything is happening in my mind, or it is not.
2. Meet another person.
3. Either this person is in my mind, or he is not.
4. Accept that he is not in my mind, and thus reject solipsism.
5. Either everything is material, or everything is in some super mind.
See? One must reject solipsism to even reach the decision of whether or not to accept god.
Here is a good article on solipsism, and why it is without basis. Maybe it will make my explanation uneccesary:
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/solipsis.htm
Just about every party involved here reject solipism!
That's right: me, huesdens, LG, we all reject it (except Iacchus).
The shedding of unnecessary (and unacceptable) assumptions goes something like this:
1. Either everything is happening in my mind, or it is not.
2. Meet another person.
3. Either this person is in my mind, or he is not.
4. Accept that he is not in my mind, and thus reject solipsism.
5. Either everything is material, or everything is in some super mind.
See? One must reject solipsism to even reach the decision of whether or not to accept god.
Here is a good article on solipsism, and why it is without basis. Maybe it will make my explanation uneccesary:
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/solipsis.htm
- #91
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 5,584
- 24
Sorry, but that's perfectly acceptable. When you do not present a deductively valid argument (and you haven't), then one can effectively illustrate the ill reasoning by showing that the premises can be taken to a different conclusion.
Last edited:
- #92
heusdens
- 1,738
- 0
I know that that is the way you escape such conclusions, and on one point, while refusing that point first, have to accept an independend reality outside of your own mind. The difference with materialism though is that you don't think of it as matter, but as mind.
I think this is ultimately very different. The things happening in my mind. for instance at sleep, are in some way reflections on and based on all day life. In my dreams I can imagine/dream to have conversations with other people.
Your position is however, to extend this to all of reality, in which all of reality is takin place within one mind. There is only one mind real, the mind who is dreaming the 'reality'. This 'reality' however consists of separate minds, which recognize themselves as separate entities, having their own mind, and also have dreams.
And another point is, that since we know that our mind is attached to a physical body, and our mind would cease to exist when we for instance would not eat for a long time, how to show the existence of such a mind. This can not be proven.
Therefore this theory makes a lot of assumptions, that failed to be proven. Such inconsistencies do not happen on the basis of materialism, which therefore is not such a foolish philosophy as Idealism.
This is not my viewpoint, but the ways as how you look at it.
Your statement is that the only way a person knows about the chat, is the things that happened within his own mind, during the chat.
It might be, for instance, in his later memories, he forgets certain details of what is being said then.
However, we could record the whole chat with a camera. The we can extend, when we later review the chat with that person, the experience of that person, and bring into memory the things he at first forgot. Which means, something happened "outside" the mind of that person too.
About adressing responses to your arguments. Do you mind remembering you that a lot of counter-arguments I already brought forward, were never responded by you? It seems whenever your theory comes into trouble, and sufficient proof has been forwarded by persons replying to your theory, you simply don't respond any more, and start a new thread, where everything goes on from the beginning.
In a serious discussion, you should not esacpe from that so lightly.
Your hypothese by the way, as I see is, is not a 'new' theory, but just a variation (different wordings) of a very well known philosophy, known as idealism.
Things you never replied to are that:
- In real day life you and every other person act and behave as materialist, and accept reality as it is (as independend of one's own mind and material). You never responded to that fact.
- Your whole argument starts out on claiming that the first premise of materialism is false. We have an awareness about a world outside us, but besides our perceptions, there is really nothing outside there, is your claim. This is of course an incorrect vision, and does not explain reality as it is. You correct that only in a later instance, by claiming that 'God' exists, which is also an outside and independend of our own minds existing entity. This is inconsequent reasoning.
- The premise on which your hypothese rest is that you claim to have a mind. In normal daily use, we do talk about this in that way, me including. But you know that that only is an assumption of course. Same as we in ordinary life assume that there exists an outside reality, which you do in fact not recognize in the way materialism does, and by that you claim that the premise of materialism is not 'proven'. Your premise however, has at least the same difficulties, since it is centred around 'mind'. Where have you ever proven that you have a mind in the first place? What proof have you given of that?
You cannot at one point claim that an ordinary daily fact (that there is an objective material world, independend of our mind) is just an 'assumption' which is not proven, and then put in a premise which is also based on ordinary daily facts (that one has a mind) which neither is proven.
Without that proof, your whole hypothese stands on nothing realy.
Last edited:
- #93
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
Don't forget that LifeGazer isn't talking about Solipism. That's not what he believes. Regardless of what the implications are though, i don't nelieve there is a way to refute it and conclude materialism.
- #94
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 5,584
- 24
No, you never did show that. That was your first leap of faith. You cannot go from "perceptions of reality are in the mind" to "reality is in the mind" without making an illogical leap (aka a leap of faith).
No, you are not so placed. This is your second leap of faith. You never made any valid deduction to get from (many minds)-->(One Mind). A deduction from premises to conclusion does not allow for the negation of the conclusion to be true. But, the premises of this argument do indeed allow for the negation of idealism to be true.
- #95
FZ+
- 1,604
- 3
Except... we are not arguing about concluding materialism here. We are arguing about a proof of God. And by the other side of the coin, Lifegazer simply, as a matter of logic, cannot refute and disprove the idea of external reality. Hence, by this argument, God is still unprovable.
- #96
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
I think that's a good idea. I hope it's different from "because my friend says he's really there"
What people accept and reject doesn't mean it can be refuted.
I got lost with this.
Thanks for that link. I would recommend that Heusdens read it. He/she seems to think it is not a worthy philosophical argument at all. I think this article goes to a lot of trouble to try to refute this view. And even then it's refutation made no sense. I don't believe it can be done.
- #97
heusdens
- 1,738
- 0
Well thank you, but I already knew that of course!
My point just was that taking his first argument (reality exists only in the mind) to be true, this ultimately leads to a position of solipsism. LG escapes that conclusion by making a leap (and shown by Tom to be an invalid leap) from many minds to one mind.
And of course there is a way to proof that the position of Idealism is wrong in so many ways. If one cares to hear them, at least.
But, as can be known from history, the clever Idealists always try to find a way out of this, and continue to attack the position of Materialism by writing a lot of stuff.
This is an important difference with how Materialism is established, cause it needs the practice (the research and experiments) to establish the theory.
- #98
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 5,584
- 24
Right, but it is a different topic entirely.
What I tried to show is that we are getting hung up on something that is not even a point of disagreement. Rejecting solipsism must be done prior to accepting god.
Let me explain some more.
#1 Idealism says: All states of existence are mental states.
#2 Solipsism goes further and says: The only mental states are my mental states.
A true solipsist, then, cannot accept a god (unless he thinks he is god). On the other hand, an idealist who understands the force of the problem of other minds and who wants to cling to principle #1 must, of necessity, introduce god.
Heusdens could probably teach a course on it. He had a post in PF v2.0 on solipsism that I really wish I had copied. Actually, I thought I had copied it, but I can't find it.
I'll get back to this later.
- #99
heusdens
- 1,738
- 0
I have been reading a lot of articles in this domain of philosophy.
The article provided for by this link, made some good points of why to refute this philosophical point of view.
For instance this argument:
If you aren't even able of recognizing the validity of such an argument, it is very arguable if continuation of this discussion has any meaning at all. I would suggest then for you to go on read some articles and books on this issue.
- #100
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
Yes, I agree FZ. This is the same reason I was telling Heusdens to attack LG's theory another way. He cannot do so by arguing which is the better theory, materialism or idealism. The idea that materialism cannot be disproven is certainly a better tactic.
- #101
heusdens
- 1,738
- 0
Do you know what source I used for that. I know of a lot of philosophers who conquered solipsism.
One piece of literature I could recommend, is to read "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism" by V.I. Lenin (1906). Despite the fact that science has since then revolutionairy evolved as well as our understanding of nature, this book is still of interest of those who want to have knowledge on dialectical-materialism, and how it opposes the point of view of Idealism.
Here is a link to this book.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/"
(search for the keyword "solipsism" and you find many references throughout the whole book).
Last edited by a moderator:
- #102
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
It's an aid to keep us from killing ourselves? If our mind produces all of reality, then even our reaction to pain is a product of the Mind.
I'll disregard the semantic error of that last sentence, for now. Who said anything about a singularity? Is this an add-on, to deflect counter-arguments, or was this part of the original hypothesis?
If the both the decision to cause pain, and the decision to make me dislike pain, belong to the Mind, then the Mind contradicts itself. Why should it make us feel pain?
Ok, that's a reasonable request.
You said:
Hurdle #4 has to do with the fact that when you leave an area, things continue to happen. Someone can tell you something about what happended when you left the party (for example), that you never witnessed.
Hurdles #2 and #3 have to do with the fact that our perception of reality is not/was not always correct. There was a time when everyone fully believed that the Earth was flat. This doesn't mean that the Earth actually was flat, does it? Hurdle number 2 also goes into the fact that we have dreams, and speculations, that never show up in actual reality. Why does the Mind distinguish between such things/"realities"?
Yes, and this reasoning is perfectly compatible with the idea that there is an external reality.
This is another important point. Why do we need such senses (or such organs that seem suited for the purpose of housing these senses), if the Mind is just imposing a reality on our awareness?
This is direct contrast to what the quote before last (above), where in you said (and I quote): "Knowledge is the product of contemplation... of those senses."
Actually, reason is not absolute. Tom has shown, in threads about Logic, that reason can be used to justify most any claims. CJames illustrated this with the Nacho hypothesis
.- #103
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
Actually LG, I wasn't so much saying that I saw flaws that Heusdens could pick apart, as much as I was saying that the way he/she was going about it was really bad.
But I'll give it a shot. I can follow much of this but there are a few leaps that I cannot make. Some of these may be in the same areas that I've seen Tom commenting on.
I agree.
You know. After reading this I'm not real sure that it says anywhere in here that the material world does not exists. If there is a sentence here that was supposed to mean that then I am not interpreting it right. Most of this seems to reiterate the first paragraph above. If I've understood all this correctly then I can agree with this as well.
Now I'm lost. How exactly do we get to a mind that is aware of things "prior" to sensing it? This is the first leap I see.
Well again, up until now I have not seen the sentence that claims the material world doesn't exist. The existence of a material world can also be the reason that everyone has the same experience. So you have to get rid of the material world before this conclusion can be made. I guess my lack of understanding the first leap above, causes this conclusion automatically to be a problem.
Let's go from here.
- #104
Lifegazer
Okay. I think I understand what you want me to do. I've given a good argument for my own position; but now you want me to give a good argument against 'external reality'. Is that right?
If you want me to do that, I shall.
- #105
heusdens
- 1,738
- 0
Look, Mr Lifegazer. This is a "discussion board". For the sake of the discussion, I would like to state that discussion is not merely a series of monologue, in which people present their own selfish ideas, and do not listen to the reaction towards their ideas, which invalidate their arguments.
I have presented some "hurdles" for your basic premisis of your 'theory'. Do you care, and respond them?
If you want to continue this discussion in a way of presenting more of your selfish ideas, without responding to the arguments that invalidate these ideas, I hold it that a further discussion is simply fruitless.