• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evidence for... (consciousness, materialism)

Guest

Unregistered
G
If I asked the pro-consciousness people what their support is for their view, what would they say?

If I asked the pro-materialism people what their support is for their view, what would they say?

This thread will explore possible answers to those questions.

So here's your chance- lay out the evidence for your view.
 
Whodini said:
If I asked the pro-consciousness people what their support is for their view, what would they say?

If I asked the pro-materialism people what their support is for their view, what would they say?

This thread will explore possible answers to those questions.

So here's your chance- lay out the evidence for your view.
Click to expand...

I don't fall into either of the above camps, but it seems fairly obvious to me that they are both axiomatic -- no support is possible if you don't already believe it.

That's why I'm a pragmatist.

Jeremy
 
I'll start from the materialistic point of view.

What I would say is, "The only thing we have evidence for is the materialistic world. Everything else is just speculation. By Occum's Razor, all this speculation which can never be proved with evidence must be discarded. Therefore, the materialistic world is the only one we need consider."

Of course, I'm pretty sure that Stimpy can argue this better than I. He has the whole argument regarding "Science assumes the world is governed by laws, and can be tested; without this axiom, than science is meaningless" argument.
 
You can speculate away to your heart's content but when you want something to hang your hat on you need evidence.
 
Conversely;

The only thing *I* have evidence for is this *I* that thinks.
Everything else is just speculation, although *I* perceives a 'bag-o-bones', *me*, and the rest of "what-is".
 
rwald said:
I'll start from the materialistic point of view.

What I would say is, "The only thing we have evidence for is the materialistic world.
Click to expand...


We have no evidence whatsoever.

Of course, I'm pretty sure that Stimpy can argue this better than I.
Click to expand...

And yet again you would be wrong. Stimpy is hopeless at philosophy, he should stick to science.
 
Hmmm, where to put my money?

Scientists or philosophers/theologicans. I wonder which group has provided accurate descriptions/predictions of phenonema in the past?

(Given a few more decades of neuroscientific research this non-problem will probably be just a historical curiousity, like the Church's one-time problem with Copernican theory. Of course, some people will probably still averse to accepting a indifferent 'mechanistic' universe view for psychological reasons of their own).
 
OK, there are two routes you can take:

1. The only thing which exists is myself. Everything else is just stuff that I perceive; for all I know, I'm a brain in a vat. There is proof for nothing.

2. I think it's reasonable to assert that the reality around me is a reasonable approximation of the "real" reality. Therefore, any scientific theories composed about this reality are valid within this reality. I'm a believer of materialism.

Hammegk, if you want to choose option 1, that's fine by me. Of course, if I'm just a figment of your imagination, than why do you argue? If you agree that I probably exist, than you fall into category 2.
 
rwald said:

Hammegk, if you want to choose option 1, that's fine by me. Of course, if I'm just a figment of your imagination, than why do you argue? If you agree that I probably exist, than you fall into category 2.
Click to expand...

Think through the alternatives under either case and you may discover that a gentlemens' agreement is the best we can do to avoid solipsism. ;)
 
I'll grant you, we have no evidence that reality exists. If one were living solely based on logic, than yes, oen would resort to solipsism. So, I think you probably are right regarding everyone's "gentleman's agreement" to assume the world exists.
 
rwald said:
.....So, I think you probably are right regarding everyone's "gentleman's agreement" to assume the world exists.
Click to expand...

Or, that *I* think, and that there is a *you* that also thinks. ;)

And remember, *I* do have one, incontrovertible, data point (as do *you*). :D
 
Wait, wait, wait. Where did this *you* come from? I have evidence that *I* exist; I think, therefore I am. But how do I know that *you* exist?
 
Maybe you just think that you're talking with a gentleman who abides by arguments. What evidence do you have that I exist? Only what your senses tell you. Can you trust them?
 
hammegk said:
Conversely;

The only thing *I* have evidence for is this *I* that thinks.
Everything else is just speculation....
Click to expand...
Unfortunately "you" are an illusion created by your brain. If your brain uses "you" properly it will ignore your wild speculations and listen attentively to your evidence. ;)
 
rwald said:
Where did this *you* come from?
Click to expand...
"you" are an illusion created by your brain just as "i" am an illusion created by my brain.

rwald said:
I have evidence that *I* exist; I think, therefore I am.
Click to expand...
A common fallacy.

Thinking cannot exist in empty space.
It requires a brain.
It is the brain doing the thinking not "you".
"You" are just an illusion created by your brain.

rwald said:
But how do I know that *you* exist?
Click to expand...
You don't, but "you" exist as an illusion created by your brain.
 
BillyJoe said:
"you" are an illusion created by your brain just as "i" am an illusion created by my brain.

A common fallacy.

Thinking cannot exist in empty space.
It requires a brain.
It is the brain doing the thinking not "you".
"You" are just an illusion created by your brain.

You don't, but "you" exist as an illusion created by your brain.
Click to expand...

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.

Just a thought.

--- Argo
 
How do we know that thinking can't exist in empty space? Yes, if someone messes with my brain, my *I* will be affected. But how do I know that it's not just a coincidence, or that whatever is creating my *I* has decided to play along with the whole "brain" idea? Maybe I'm just a brain in a jar. Maybe I'm just a computer program. Maybe I don't have a physical existence of any kind at all. All I know is that in some form, *I* exist.

If someone wants to revert to pure solipsism, there is no argument you can use against them.
 
MRC_Hans' sure-fire test of the usefulness of Solipsism.

Disclaimer: This is meant as a hypothetical experiment. If you decide to carry it out in practice, you do so entirely on your own responsibility ;)

1) Find a sharp object, like a knife or scissors (Lacking those, a pencil might do).

2) Take sharp object in one hand.

3) Place other hand on table.

4) Using considerable force, press sharp object aganst hand on table.

5) Repeat procedure (#1 through #4) till you are convinced that the result is consistent.

Now for evaluation: Does it hurt? Do you bleed?

If yes, Solipsism is probably wrong and definitely useless. Obviously, no matter how it is/was created, the world acts as if it exists, and you will have to threat it as if it is real.

Hans
 
But what if who/whatever it is which is running The Matrix in which I live wants me to believe that my hand and the knife is real? Just because the results are consistent now, doesn't mean that they'll always be consistent. And correlation doesn't mean causation, as we all know. You can never disprove solipsism!

For the record, I don't actually hold to solipsism. I'm just defending it so that someone less cogent than I doesn't need to fill the void.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom