Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....

[David Mo]

There is of course no such “burden of proof” upon scientists. Because they are not claiming to ever have a literal “proof” in the sense of absolute certainty. What science has as any “burden” is simply the need to provide evidence and the need to show that the conclusions which we draw from that evidence can be tested and checked with results that are consistent and repeatable.

Literal or not, the realist must present any kind of evidence. But this evidence cannot be the experience, because what is at stake is just experience. The evidence that experience corresponds to reality cannot be any experience. That is what the solipsist asks you to justify.

 

[Darat]

Literal or not, the realist must present any kind of evidence. But this evidence cannot be the experience, because what is at stake is just experience. The evidence that experience corresponds to reality cannot be any experience. That is what the solipsist asks you to justify.

And it is what the solipsist must also justify.

 

[David Mo]

I didn't mean that the something exists outside of the observer. But the fact remains that you experience something. It's not just a general feeling of consciousness. You experience events.

But how I know that the event is out of my mind?

 

[David Mo]

And it is what the solipsist must also justify.

Why?

 

[David Mo]

You are still making the assumption that you exist.

Personally I think it is crazy to doubt that but if you want to be consistent and claim that we only know we exist then you have to assume that you do in fact exist.

Your mistake: The solipsist doesn't say "we" exist, but "I" exist. It is a very different thing.

The absurdity is to say,"I think and I don't exist". Damn it! If you are something that is thinking, you can't say that you are something that is not thinking!

 

[Belz...]

But how I know that the event is out of my mind?

Again, I didn't say or imply that it was.

Are you asking me how I could tell the difference?

 

[Darat]

Depends what you mean by "you". If we mean "the observer" then they can absolutely assume it. It's self-evident that something is experiencing stuff. That something is called "you". Now, that's pretty much the limit of what you can say for certain, but then if you stop there that's not very useful as a philosophy.

But it isn't. It rests on the idea that what we experience is in fact "real" i.e. an assumption that at least a reality exists.

 

[Darat]

Why?

Because they need according to your criticism of the realist to be able to demonstrate that their experience is real.

 

[David Mo]

Again, I didn't say or imply that it was.

Are you asking me how I could tell the difference?

None difference. I asking you what is the proof that the event you are thinking about is outside you mind. Why is it not an illusion?

 

[Darat]

Your mistake: The solipsist doesn't say "we" exist, but "I" exist. It is a very different thing.

The absurdity is to say,"I think and I don't exist". Damn it! If you are something that is thinking, you can't say that you are something that is not thinking!

Of course you can. And indeed me quoting your text is proof of one example of that, what is your post other than something that doesn't think telling me that it thinks? Or do you claim your post has this mysterious experience that you claim the solpolist has?

 

[David Mo]

Because they need according to your criticism of the realist to be able to demonstrate that their experience is real.

So when someone asks for proof, you ought to give it to him? You have to prove to theist that God does not exist?

 

[Darat]

So when someone asks for proof, you ought to give it to him? You have to prove to theist that God does not exist?

Not following your reasoning?

 

[David Mo]

Of course you can. And indeed me quoting your text is proof of one example of that, what is your post other than something that doesn't think telling me that it thinks? Or do you claim your post has this mysterious experience that you claim the solpolist has?

The solipsist has no mysterious experience. You have He has the same impressions and emotions as you and me. We are the ones who have a mysterious belief that we cannot justify: that these impressions correspond to something mysterious that we call "reality".

 

[Darat]

The solipsist has no mysterious experience. ^{You have He has the same impressions and emotions as you and me.} We are the ones who have a mysterious belief that we cannot justify: that these impressions correspond to something mysterious that we call "reality".

You have no way of knowing that.

 

[Belz...]

But it isn't. It rests on the idea that what we experience is in fact "real" i.e. an assumption that at least a reality exists.

Absolutely not. It only assumes that the observer is having experiences. These experiences need not imply perception.

I asking you what is the proof that the event you are thinking about is outside you mind. Why is it not an illusion?

Because it has one thing that none of the things that I know exist in my mind alone have: total consistency. And before you say that doesn't make it 100% certain, so what? The only people asking for 100% certainty are solipsists, and they still play it safe by getting out of the way of speeding cars.

 

[David Mo]

Not following your reasoning?

It is very simple, because you are in the same position as the deist who has a belief and asks the agnostic to prove it is false. It is the proposer of "x exists" who has to prove it.

 

[Darat]

It is very simple, because you are in the same position as the deist who has a belief and asks the agnostic to prove it is false. It is the proposer of "x exists" who has to prove it.

(Right follow you, thanks)

You don't seem to apply that to the solpolist - they need to prove that they exist just as much as the realist needs to prove their reality exists.

And obviously they can't, so what they have is a reality they construct from an assumption, again just as the realist does.

 

[David Mo]

Because it has one thing that none of the things that I know exist in my mind alone have: total consistency.

More than 50% of things in my mind have consistency: the landscape I'm looking at through my window under the rain is perfectly consistent, my wife who comes to ask me for a book is fully consistent, the computer I write on is fully consistent, etc.

 

[Darat]

Absolutely not. It only assumes that the observer is having experiences. These experiences need not imply perception.

...snip...

Which is a restatement of the circular logic of "I think therefore I am" - it requires an assumption.

Which ever way it is sliced assuming one is the solpolist requires just as many assumptions as any other monism.

 

[Dancing David]

OK, so in stark contrast to science, the philosophers here can still offer no explanation for what is causing their so-called "consciousness".

There's really nothing here to discuss until philosophers explain how consciousness is produced without the "reality" of a brain. If they cannot do that then they have no case at all and their claim of solipsism is a worthless waste of everyones time (like so much else in philosophy).

There is an assumption of mind with no direct evidence