Evidence for... (consciousness, materialism)

[Stimpson J. Cat]

A point about Solipsism.

If you take Solipsism to be the position that nothing exists except your own mind, then naturally before you can assess whether it is true or not, you must have a definition of existence.

If you define existence in such a way that things which clearly affect you (like the pointy objects is Hans' example) don't exist, as you would have to in order for Solipsism to not be trivially false, then all this means is that you have invented a totally pointless, and really stupid, definition of existence.

Unfortunately, most so-called philosophers don't ever bother to define what they mean by "existence". They simply take as granted a vague, intuitive notion of "ontological existence". Solipsism fails as a coherent philosophical position for exactly the same reason any other ontological philosophy (metaphysic) does. It is incoherent because it takes as the fundamental basis for the entire framework a concept which is not, and can not be, coherently defined.

In other words, the question is not whether we can prove Solipsism is false, or even whether it is possible to prove it false. The relevant question is: does it actually mean anything at all to say that it is true?

I say it does not.

Dr. Stupid

 

[rwald]

For the record, I'll define existence as "The fact that something, unquestionably, has an actual analog in whatever the "real" reality is. In other words, no matter what the "real" reality is, the thing in question is there, somewhere and somehow." I guess by that definition, the knife *is* real; maybe it's just a figment of my imagination, but doesn't that count as real? It might be more complicated than I've implied.

And yes, I would agree that pure solipsism can tell us nothing useful. Saying that "nothing exists" sure doesn't help us gain a greater understanding of the universe.

 

[BillyJoe]

Can you rule out the possibility that the "I" is more like a program running on a computer, something that wouldn't exist without the computer, but isn't just an illusion created by the computer? In this context the programmer would be natural selection which simultaneously evolves a program and a computer on which to run that program.

I like it.

Except for the bit about ithe "I" not being an illusion.
It is as much of an illusion as those "buttons" that you see on your computer screen.

What do you think?

 

[BillyJoe]

How do we know that thinking can't exist in empty space? Maybe I'm just a brain in a jar.

A "brain in a jar" is not "empty space".

Maybe I'm just a computer program.

A "computer program" is not "empty space"

Maybe I don't have a physical existence of any kind at all.

Maybe, but we are doing metaphysics here not science.

All I know is that in some form, *I* exist.

Maybe that's all you know for sure but to get any further you may need to make some assumptions.

 

[Argo Nimbus]

I like it.

Except for the bit about ithe "I" not being an illusion.
It is as much of an illusion as those "buttons" that you see on your computer screen.

What do you think?

The buttons on your computer screen are an illusion if they appear to be three-dimenional objects when they are actually just drawings on a flat screen. If we agree to avoid solipsism, then the buttons are real, but can be misinterpreted. So to turn your argument around, the "I" is just as real as the buttons on your computer screen. The issue is whether facts we claim to know about the "I" are true or just misinterpretations.

The point of my computer program analogy was to question whether saying "the brain creates an illusion" makes anymore sense than saying "my computer creates a screen display". My computer makes it possible for a process running on it to create the screen display, but the computer does not create the display.

--- Argo

 

[rwald]

Actually, BillyJoe, you're sort of making sense. I guess that for my *I* to exist, there must exist some physical object somewhere which "contains" my *I*. So, I'll agree that both my *I* and some physical object can be said to definitely exist.

Beyond that, however...

 

[Interesting Ian]

Actually, BillyJoe, you're sort of making sense. I guess that for my *I* to exist, there must exist some physical object somewhere which "contains" my *I*.

Are you able to justify this belief?

 

[rwald]

Interesting. As long as I support your belief, you don't feel the need to speak, but as soon as I say one thing against you, it's over. Well, I knew there was a reason I was arguing for solipsism.

Anyway, the point brought out by BillyJoe is that somewhere, somehow, there needs to be something physical which is where my *I* resides. I'm not suggesting that it's my brain, in the commonly accepted meaning of that. Maybe it's a computer. Maybe it's something more esoteric than I can conceive. I don't know. The question is, how can there not be something where my *I* "lives"? Where is my *I*, if there is nothing? What iis creating all these perceptions that I have?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Interesting. As long as I support your belief, you don't feel the need to speak, but as soon as I say one thing against you, it's over. Well, I knew there was a reason I was arguing for solipsism.

Do not be silly, I haven't even read the thread!

Anyway, the point brought out by BillyJoe is that somewhere, somehow, there needs to be something physical which is where my *I* resides.

Why?

I'm not suggesting that it's my brain, in the commonly accepted meaning of that. Maybe it's a computer. Maybe it's something more esoteric than I can conceive. I don't know. The question is, how can there not be something where my *I* "lives"? Where is my *I*, if there is nothing?

Your I is not anywhere. It doesn't have a location. How can something nonphysical have a location?

What iis creating all these perceptions that I have?

What perceptions? You mean your sensory perceptions? The external world and your mind create your sensory perceptions.

 

[BillyJoe]

The buttons on your computer screen are an illusion if they appear to be three-dimenional objects when they are actually just drawings on a flat screen.

Even the drawings are an illusion.

Basically all we have in the computer program are a string of zeros and ones. There are no butttons real or simulated just zeros and ones coding for simulated buttons. Similarly, if you open your word processor and open an old document you are given the illusion of pages in file but there are no actual pages in there.

(When I say illusion, I do not mean delusion.
An illusion has a representation in the mind AND an existence "out there" that everyone can attest to.
A delusion has a representation in some minds but no existence "out there" that everyone can attest to.)

If we agree to avoid solipsism....

.....then the buttons are real, but can be misinterpreted. So to turn your argument around, the "I" is just as real as the buttons on your computer screen.

I would say that they have an illusory existence.

Another example is an optical illusion.
The effect is there for all to see (unlike a delusion which is only there for the mental patient) but it is not really there as a bit of experimentation will demonstrate (see checker board illusion)

The issue is whether facts we claim to know about the "I" are true or just misinterpretations.

But I think the issue is whether you think the "i" is an illusion or if you think there is a
real person in there separate from the algorithm running in your brain.

 

[BillyJoe]

I guess that for my *I* to exist, there must exist some physical object somewhere which "contains" my *I*.

Well I would say that some physical object that creates the illusion of your *I* must exist somewhere.

So, I'll agree that both my *I* and some physical object can be said to definitely exist.

I would say that both your illusional *I* and the physical object that creates the illusion of your *I* definitely exist.
(When I say that an illusion exists, I mean it exists in a way that a delusion does not)

Beyond that, however...

Agreed.
But I think it is a pretty safe assumption that the "physical object" that creates the illusion of your *I* is actually your brain.

 

[MRC_Hans]

All good points.

The idea about my test is not to disprove Solipsism, since as some mentioned, that can't really be done (and it would be proving a negative). My point was to prove that it is irrelevant: If the world insists on acting real, we need to threat it as real, otherwise we are going to get hurt.

And, that said, of course, it becomes difficult to defend Solipsism as a parsimonious theory.

Hans

 

[Interesting Ian]

.

Another example is an optical illusion.
The effect is there for all to see (unlike a delusion which is only there for the mental patient) but it is not really there as a bit of experimentation will demonstrate (see checker board illusion)

[/B]

Oh don't be so absurd! Why can't anyone understand that so called "optical illusions" are not distinct from any other sensory perceptions? If optical illusions are an illusion then so is everything we ever perceptually perceive. Hardly useful to describe everything we ever see as being an illusion.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian, the term optical illusion has a specific definition. You can't just define it any way you feel like, or you make conversation difficult.

The term is defined relative to normal optical perception. It doesn't matter what the philosophy du jour is about normal optical perception.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Well I would say that some physical object that creates the illusion of your *I* must exist somewhere.

As a materialist/atheist, what else could you say? Please define "energy".

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian, the term optical illusion has a specific definition. You can't just define it any way you feel like, or you make conversation difficult.

The term is defined relative to normal optical perception. It doesn't matter what the philosophy du jour is about normal optical perception.

~~ Paul

The point is they are named inappropriately. If they are illusions why aren't all our sensory perceptions labelled illusions?

 

[MRC_Hans]

II:

They are called optical illusions because they make us SEE something that isn't there. But there are other sensory illusions; I forget the details, but if you hold a certain grid of sharp edges against the skin, they feel cold, regardless of their actual temperature. Or try and cross your index and long finger. Now rub the V they form along the ridge of your nose: To most people, it will feel like you have two noses.

Hans

 

[Argo Nimbus]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Even the drawings are an illusion.

Basically all we have in the computer program are a string of zeros and ones. There are no butttons real or simulated just zeros and ones coding for simulated buttons.

This is a classic fallacy, i.e. the fallacy of the beard. It's as though you argued that all a bearded man has on his face are individual facial hairs, so the beard is an illusion. This makes just enough sense to keep an argument going at the pub for several hours, but in the end we would either have to say that anything named by a collective noun is an illusion or else we would have to accept that a beard is not an illusion. Take your pick.

Originally posted by BillyJoe

Similarly, if you open your word processor and open an old document you are given the illusion of pages in file but there are no actual pages in there.

I would say instead that when I open my word processor, what I am given is an image displaying a page of data, much as it would look if it was printed on paper. If there is no chance that I would confuse the screen image with a sheet of paper, then there is no illusion. The screen image is what it is: a drawing on a computer screen. It is no more of an illusion than the paintings hanging in an art gallery.

Originally posted by Argo Nimbus
.....then the buttons are real, but can be misinterpreted. So to turn your argument around, the "I" is just as real as the buttons on your computer screen.

Originally posted by BillyJoe
I would say that they have an illusory existence.

That sounds very profound and I'm sure that there is also a sense in which a man's beard has only an illusory existence.

Originally posted by BillyJoe
But I think the issue is whether you think the "i" is an illusion or if you think there is a real person in there separate from the algorithm running in your brain.

No, I don't believe there is anything "in there" separate from the process running in my brain. However, I believe that the process exists and is not an illusion. The whole point of calling the "I" an "illusion" is to be able to say that there is nothing in your head that is real except your brain. However, my computer seems to provide a perfect counter-example to that sort of argument in that it contains not only the hardware that makes a program possible, i.e. the brain, it contains something else that makes all screen displays possible, i.e. a process.

--- Argo

 

[BillyJoe]

Oh don't be so absurd!

Why can't anyone understand that so called "optical illusions" are not distinct from any other sensory perceptions?

Okay, there is a limited sense in which this is true.

There are things out there that we do not see at all because our retinas don't respond to the wavelength of light reflected by them into our eyes. Other things we see "accurately" because there are no confusing/conflicting sense data presented to our brains. However, when there are confusing/conflicting sense data presented to our brains, we see things other than as they "really" are. We can even see things that are not there at all. These we refer to as optical illusions. There is a sense in which many/all other optical phenomena are "optical illusions" but they differ in degree to what we refer to as optical illusions.

These "optical illusions" occur because our brains do not handle the sensory inputs totally accurately.

If optical illusions are an illusion then so is everything we ever perceptually perceive.

This is only true if you can say with a straight face that an "optical illusion" for which there is a corresponding object out there is no different from an optical illusion for which there is no corresponding object out there.

Hardly useful to describe everything we ever see as being an illusion.

And I think it is also not useful and certainly confusing to not distinguish between different meanings of the word illusion.

 

[BillyJoe]

As a materialist/atheist....

Materialist/nontheist, but this response takes hardly any effort on your part

.....what else could you say?

What else can YOU say?

Please define "energy".

"Off topic" until you show me relevance.