And even after having it revealed that his insistance on 'sense of a brain' vs. 'painting of a brain' is just confusing double-talk, he STILL reverts to this primitive form of argument.
No, Darren, you did not conclude through reason that nothing se sense reflects the real world; you assumed. Every single piece of reason ever concocted has had to rely on at least one single assumption - yours as well.
Now, let's compare the practical aspects of assuming other beings exist - by beings, I mean sets of perceptions, experiences of being, etc. - vs. assuming they don't.
By assuming they do, we can safely compare and contrast perception and experience. If things we sense consistantly and reliably are reported to us by other beings as being the same, we may conclude that there is an objective state for that sensation - in other words, that there is some reality behind that sensation.
By assuming they don't, we must conclude that only we exist - which is the assumption, of course - and that, as a result, everything we observe is illusion, generated by ourself, and that nothing these other perceived beings is doing is relevant to that. Hence, we can never be sure of anything at all.
Let's compare the practical aspects of assuming there is an underlying reality behind our sensations.
If we assume there is, then we can observe and analyze what we sense, and come to conclusions about the nature of that reality, allowing us adequate predictive powers. We can understand relationships between objects, and learn new ways to recombine naturally occuring things to make newer and better things.
If we assume there is not, then we can never know anything.
I do not dispute that there is order/law in the world of sensed-things. But this order emanates from Whatever it is that creates the sensations that lead to the deduction/judgement of 'things'. It is the essence of all Law seen within/upon awareness.
Whether this is true or not, whether your theory is true or not, has no bearing on science whatsoever. If all the sensed-evidence points to fire as being a thing destructive and hot, then every single time we encounter fire, it will be hot and destructive. It is the order of sensations imposed upon us by whatever is causing these sensations - whether a real, external physical world, or the Matrix, or a psychotic God. Likewise, if every bit of evidence tells us that the universe started in a Big Bang - mind, this is the sensed-universe, of course - then that is how the sensed-universe started. It doesn't matter if that universe is real, or an illusion of the Matrix, or a dream in the head of God; this sense-of-a-universe works as it is programmed to work or designed to work or how it happens to work.
You've stated before that there's no way a Big Bang happened in your head. But your head doesn't exist, either, according to you. So are you inferring that God can't have dreamed up a universe by first dreaming of a Big Bang, followed by all the events that scientists believe must have happened, to lead to the modern day? And if so, why? What limitations are there to a supposedly omnipotent Deity that keep this universe - whatever it is - from being exactly what all the evidence says it is, whether a dream or not?
I am telling you FACTS that are indisputable, such as the sense-of-a-brain is NOT the cause of thoughts & feelings.
No, it isn't. But a brain is an inferred object - like all objects - which we deduce exists from our sensations and from the assumption that other beings exist who share consistant and reliable observations with us. So whatever it is causing the sensation of a brain - whether a real brain in real space through our sensory processing, or whether the dream of an introexistential god - is the cause of the thoughts and feelings associated with that brain - or, should we say, the inferred thoughts and feelings which we deduce exists. Because no one can ever have the sensation of their own brain - at least, not yet.
In other words, Darren, you're not saying something profound at all; you're saying something childishly simple, that comes down to a simple 'duh!' moment.
Of course, a painting of a tree is not the cause of a painting of the shadow beneath the painted tree. Of course, the painted sun is not the cause of the painted light. No one in their right mind disputes that. It's ridiculous to accuse anyone of doing so.
But when we assume that other sets of perceptions exist relative to this set of perceptions, and every one of them reports the same shadow under the same tree, or the same light coming from the same sun - then we can deduce that the REAL tree casts a REAL shadow, and a REAL sun gives off REAL light. On the other hand, if every set of perceptions came back with a different answer, then we'd have reason to deny our sensations.
Yes, those deductions may be wrong. There's no doubt of that, either. But when you have the sensation of being uncomfortably hot from standing in the sensation of sunlight, and you seek a tree for shade, and rest in its sensed-shadow, and find relief, every single time - why treat it as anything different than what it seems to be?
This is why the only way your theories will ever do more than annoy intellectuals is if you can circumvent the laws of physics, or the nature of reality, by demonstrating the power of your Will or Thought or whatever in violation of observed-reality. Can you do it? Can you bypass this reality and invoke whatever reality you desire instead? Can you do miracles?
Unless the answer is a demonstrated 'yes', there is no reason for science not to stay the course and move forward.
