Deism?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Franko

Maybe I’m not asking, maybe you are just imagining that I ‘m asking?

From my viewpoint if I was a solipsist. But if YOU are the solipsist, why are you asking me this?

If you say so, but considering that there are no scientists your claim is rather ludicrous.

There are no scientists? Oh-tay.

How so, because you want to pretend that it isn’t True?

You’re God, do whatever you want!

Not pretend. It isn't. Self-evidently so.

How is the system any less coherent just because the algorithm is running in your head? The equation is what makes reality coherent.

Solipsism does not tell why sensations change, why I am not omnipotent, why I have unpleasant sensations, what could create me/if I'm eternal.

Kind of like when a Christian sees if there is a way to explain reality via God … then if there is he regards the alternative as superfluous?

Does he regard the alternative as superfluous? Also, we can see matter, I am yet to see God.

A square-circle is a logical contradiction, because something cannot be “circular” (all points equidistant from the center) and be a square (four equal length sides with right angles) at the same time.

Yes the law of noncontradiction but how is that itself established.

But there is NO such logical contradiction implied in Solipsism.

In a sense it is as it goes against something I consider to be self-evident: objectivism.

In fact, if Materialism is true, then Solipsism is (by necessity) more True because Solipsism is exactly the same as Materialism, it is just more parsimonious (and thus more logical).

Parsimony was developed because people can make stuff up and be wrong about their description of reality. The Principle of Parsimony(POP) was developed because if a person was allowed to make as many assumptions as he or she wished....he or she could literally put forth anything as a solid theory.

Now if solipsism is true, there really is no belief that is wrong and no person making something up. Thus the POP makes no sense and has no use.

Hence Objectivism must underly POP; for without an objective world it makes little sense to say one's belief is "made up." or purely a product of imagination. This makes the principle of parsimony at odds with solipsism.

Let me ask you this, as a Materialist you believe that a unified theory of physics exist – correct?

Not yet, though I imagine scientists are wroking on it.

You believe that there is a TOE (theory of everything) that explains how the four forces interact and operate.

Nope.

What makes you believe that the equation for TOE doesn’t already exist inside your subconscious mind?

That's be spurrious and at odds with the fact that I don't believe in a subconscious mind.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that your mind is the source of reality?

Because that is incoherent and fundamentally absurd. I do not believe that for the same reason I do not believe that 2 plus 2 can ever equal 15.

Do you ever dream at night? Ever had a lucid dream where the people and events seemed very realistic? Obviously your mind is capable of generating a reality.

My dream is precisely that because it feels different then a waking state and it is not true. Without an objective basis a dream ceases to be a dream.

What makes you so certain that this isn’t what’s happening this very moment?

I'm not 100 percent certain though, given some objectivity and background knowledge via correlation as an axiom; I can say I'm very,very,close to certain.

Also Materialism leaves some problematic questions like: if everything appeared in the “big bang”, then where did YOU (the Universe) come from?

I say matter, in the broadest sense, is eternal. Do you maintain the same for the self? If so how come I cannot remember this?

Why is YOU appearing magically out of no where more far fetched then an entire Universe magically appearing?

I don't believe the universe magically appeared.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Franko

Solipsism: The theory that physical reality is the product of the mind and that everything, including thought, feeling, matter, and will, can be explained in terms of the self. Physical phenomena are simply an illusion in the mind. Essentially Solipsism is the view that Materialism is True, but that the unified equation of physics already exist in the subconscious mind of the Solipsist “God” generating reality and “reading” this post.

You must not be speaking English because in every dictionary and philosophy text I know of: that is not solipsism. The first half of that is subjective idealism though you must include that fact that only you exist and others are illusions for full blown solipsism.

 

[Franko]

You must not be speaking English because in every dictionary and philosophy text I know of: that is not solipsism. The first half of that is subjective idealism though you must include that fact that only you exist and others are illusions for full blown solipsism.

Let me put it to you like this. Solipsism is simply a more parsimonious version of the Theory of Materialism. Everything that is True under Materialism is also True under Solipsism, however unlike Materialism Solipsism doesn’t have to magically account for the existence of an entire Universe which is only a figment of the readers imagination anyway. No Solipsism is the same exact theory as Materialism, except in Solipsism, only YOU popped out of nothing …

 

[MRC_Hans]

Everything that is True under Materialism is also True under Solipsism

--- And this is exactly the parsimony argument against Solipsism: Materialism already explains all we observe, so adding a hypothetical entity to imagine it all is an extra complexity. And an unneccessary one. Which observations are explained by Solipsism that are not already explained by Materialism? Which predictions do Solipsism make that cannot be predicted by Materialism?

Hans

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Franko

Solipsism is simply a more parsimonious version of the Theory of Materialism. Everything that is True under Materialism is also True under Solipsism, however unlike Materialism Solipsism doesn?t have to magically account for the existence of an entire Universe which is only a figment of the readers imagination anyway. No Solipsism is the same exact theory as Materialism, except in Solipsism, only YOU popped out of nothing

This is not solipsism. It resembles objective idealism a bit but not entirely. This is the definition of solipsism:

sol·ip·sism [Audio pronunciation of solipsism] ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slp-szm, slp-)
n. Philosophy

1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
2. The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=solipsism

It is incompatible with objectivism, which is necessary for both materialism and parsimony.

 

[Tricky]

--- And this is exactly the parsimony argument against Solipsism: Materialism already explains all we observe, so adding a hypothetical entity to imagine it all is an extra complexity. And an unneccessary one. Which observations are explained by Solipsism that are not already explained by Materialism? Which predictions do Solipsism make that cannot be predicted by Materialism?

Hans

Don't be obtuse, Hans. Solipsism is more parsimonious because it is like materialism without the materials! Fewer materials to clutter it up obviously make it more parsimonious.

 

[CWL]

Don't be obtuse, Hans. Solipsism is more parsimonious because it is like materialism without the materials! Fewer materials to clutter it up obviously make it more parsimonious.

Agreed. Now if we could only figure out how to get rid of the solipsist in the solipsism theory, then we would have a truly parsimonious theory.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Ehh, you can say that , but somebody who keeps hammering on about how we obey tlop cant. Not if he cares about logical consistency, but then, I have seen no evidence that he does.

Hans

 

[Franko]

Franko:
Let me put it to you like this. Solipsism is simply a more parsimonious version of the Theory of Materialism. Everything that is True under Materialism is also True under Solipsism, however unlike Materialism Solipsism doesn’t have to magically account for the existence of an entire Universe which is only a figment of the readers imagination anyway. No Solipsism is the same exact theory as Materialism, except in Solipsism, only YOU popped out of nothing …

MRC:
--- And this is exactly the parsimony argument against Solipsism: Materialism already explains all we observe, so adding a hypothetical entity to imagine it all is an extra complexity.

How are YOU a hypothetical entity? You have it backwards … it’s the Universe and all the “matter” that is hypothetical. If you are reading these words, then you are definitely real. I mean, after all, how can you be imagining yourself???

And an unneccessary one.

How are YOU unnecessary? Could you explain that?

Which observations are explained by Solipsism that are not already explained by Materialism? Which predictions do Solipsism make that cannot be predicted by Materialism?

Solipsism explains everything that Materialism explains. Solipsism makes all the same predictions that Materialism does.

The main difference between Solipsism and Materialism (A-Theism) is that in Materialism you have to account for an entire universe magically appearing, and in Solipsism you only have to account for YOU magically appearing – the Universe is just a figment of your imagination, after all.

 

[Franko]

This is not solipsism. It resembles objective idealism a bit but not entirely. This is the definition of solipsism:

What difference does any of that make? You are all alone in the Universe. No one else is real. Deal with it.

It is incompatible with objectivism, which is necessary for both materialism and parsimony.

Hey I don’t even exist, so whatever you say goes. I just thought you wanted to be reminded of what is really happening in reality. I guess “I” was wrong?

 

[Tricky]

Let me put it to you like this. Solipsism is simply a more parsimonious version of the Theory of Materialism. Everything that is True under Materialism is also True under Solipsism, however unlike Materialism Solipsism doesn’t have to magically account for the existence of an entire Universe which is only a figment of the readers imagination anyway. No Solipsism is the same exact theory as Materialism, except in Solipsism, only YOU popped out of nothing …

And of course, Logical Deism is yet more parsimonious than Solipsism, even though it postulates a universe that magically pops out of nothing. Golly! This has got more loops than an Alabama family tree.

 

[Franko]

And of course, Logical Deism is yet more parsimonious than Solipsism, even though it postulates a universe that magically pops out of nothing. Golly! This has got more loops than an Alabama family tree.

Silly A-Theist! The Universe didn't pop out of Nothing. It popped out of your head when you imagined it!

 

[Tricky]

Reviving this thread since Hal brought up the Deism issue. I realize that nobody is skeptical about everything, but is Deism a more egregious breach of skepticality than say, trusting the weatherman? I'd be interested to hear what Joshua Korosi has to say about Hal's commentary.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

The Best Theism?

Personally I see Deism as the most defensible/rational kind of theism.

Mainly because it is not so directly at odds with the facts as lets say, the God of creationists or theistic evolution.

In fact the more distant a God is the more rational it is, but imo it is never as rational a position as atheism.

Gods that are involved in claims directly relating to fact are easily and directly disproven, via showing the facts underlying the God are said to be wrong.

i.e. God of theistic evolution, "God directs evolution, i.e. evolution is teleological."


This can be shown to be false easily, so the God os theistic evolution is.

Basically, because Darwinian evolution is true.

Now this formula follows.

If G(God) then TE. (Theistic Evolution)

If TE no DE. (DE=Darwinian Evolution)

DE.

Hence no TE.

Hence no G.


Thus evidence for Darwinian evolution is evidence against theistic evolution and the God who is said to direct evolution.

However the Deist can distance his God more then this, making it less obviously testable. Lets say to making the material universe and natural laws.


If God then Material Universe and Natural Laws.

There really is no way to disprove this via a matter of pure fact.

However it is obviously superfluous and becomes more superfluous the more untestable claims are made.

This being superfluous is not as directly at odds with much of the facts as lets say a fundamentalist God. As in that example you just imagine a Deity and creation(perhaps even afterlife and soul.)

But in the one of theistic evolution, you imagine a deity, creation, everything deists do PLUS Theistic evolution.

 

[c4ts]

http://deism.org/ageofreason.htm