Final proof that Stimpson J Cat is wrong

[Stimpson J. Cat]

davidsmith,

What is this "realm of consciousness" of which you speak? If it includes more than just your actual experiences, then it is something which objectively exists, and knowledge about it is objective knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The realm of Consciousness doesn't exist independently of your experience of it. Every single experience we have is a manifestation of this reality.

That is no different than me saying "Objective reality does not exist independently of your experience of it. Every single experience we have is a manifestation of objective reality".

You are mistakenly interpreting objective reality to mean some sort of ontological independence from experiences. That is dualism. All that reality being objective means is that there is more to reality than just your experiences.

I am not making any claims about ontological separateness of experiences and reality. on the contrary, I freely acknowledge that our experiences are a part of objective reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In that case your definition of objectivity is contradictory. You say objectivity = anything existing (ontology) independently (separate) from your experience of it. This is clearly a claim about the ontological separateness of objective reality from experience.
Perhaps you want to change your definition

I have no need to change it. Not only did you misinterpret it, but it is quite clear that you misinterpreted it, since I clarified within the definition that I was not referring to any kind of ontological separateness, but instead only to the fact that there is more to reality than just your awareness of it.

Here is what I actually said again:

Anything which exists independently of your awareness of it. Note that this does not rule out the possibility that you may be a part of objective reality. In fact, the fact that you interact with the rest of objective reality implies that you are a part of it.

I specifically clarified that I wasn't referring to any kind of ontological "separateness". I also clarified after that post that by "independently" I simply mean that there is more to it than just the awareness, and that it is only independent in the sense that the stuff you are aware of is there even when you are not aware of it.

Quite frankly, I can only imagine two ways that you could have so grossly misinterpreted what I have been saying:

1) You aren't really trying to understand my position. You think you already know what it is, and are just arguing against that.

2) You are deliberately misrepresenting my position in order to make it easier to attack.

I do not know, or care, which it is.

Nonsense. There is more to your own consciousness than just your experiences. Simply defining "realm of experience" to include that extra stuff, does not change the fact that it objectively exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Objectivity = anything that exists independently from your experience of it.

The single realm of Consciousness does not objectively exist. It is experiential by definition.

By whose definition? Are you really claiming there is nothing more than just your experiences? Are you really a solipsist? If so, why are you arguing with yourself?

Every experience we have is a manifestation of Consciousness and this is the only existence there is.

That is just monism. Monism is a claim about objective reality. Objectivity is not equivalent to dualism. I am not a dualist.

I never said anything about ontological separateness. That is dualism. I am not a dualist, and science in no way has anything to do with dualism.

Our experiences are not ontologically separate from objective reality. They are a part of objective reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like I said, this makes your definition of objectivity meaningless. Your definition of objectivity cannot get away from dualism and the hard problem results.

There is no dualism in my definition. Not unless you artificially put it there. Claiming there is more to reality than just your experiences does not imply dualism. Both Idealism and Materialism make this assumption, as does the scientific framework.

I said your awareness of it, not consciousness. Idealism implicitly assumes that there is more to your consciousness than just what you are aware of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This "just what you are aware of" is a bit unclear to me. If I am just aware of red and yellow right now is green going to be classed as "more than I am aware of" ?

Don't be stupid. I am not interested in such mindless sophisms.

What you are aware of is the stuff you are experiencing. When you claim that there are patterns to your experiences, patterns which you are not currently aware of, you are assuming that there is more to reality than just what you are aware of.

Objectivity only assumes that there is more to reality than just what you are aware of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, you said that objectivity assumes that something existsindependently of your experience of it.

That is dualism. Try again at a definition ?

I just gave you the definition. Objectivity means that there is more to reality than just what you are aware of. That is what I meant by "exists independently of your experience of it", as was clear from my definition, where I explicitly clarified that I was not talking about dualism.

This is silly. You aren't even arguing with me. You are arguing with some nonexistent dualist.

That is a claim of objective reality. You are claiming that consciousness objectively exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. Consciousness is contained within every single experience we have. If there is no Consciousness then there are no experiences. There is no reason to assume that Consciousness exists separately from any experience because such a concept is meaningless. If you want to picture a Venn diagram, any individual experience is a small circle within the larger circle of Consciousness. So Consciousness is not separate from any experience, rather any experience is a manifestation of Consciousness.

The fact that the consciousness circle contains more than just experiences is what makes it objective. Nobody is defending dualism here.

Monistic philosophies like Idealism and Materialism both do this. Neither of those philosophies claim that there is an objective realm separate from a subjective realm. They both hold that everything is part of one realm, and that this one realm contains more than just your experiences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you mean by "more than just your experiences" ?

I already explained that.

If this is not an ontological claim then what kind of claim is it ?

An epistemological one.

I suppose you could claim it is an ontological claim too, using the right definition of ontological. But the fact remains that it is a claim about something knowable, unlike claims about unknowable ontological substances.



Dr. Stupid

 

[hammegk]

Examine them all you want, but logic will never be able to tell you which, if either of them, is correct.

True, but I find fewer inconsistencies assuming idealism.

Once you accept that axioms of science (objectivity, logical rules, and empiricism), the theory that you are just another person is a falsifiable theory.

Depending on what you have in "mind" as a proof, materialism is falsifiable.

You don't need to have faith, or accept any "gentlemen's agreement". There is plenty of supporting evidence.
Dr. Stupid

Yup, and that evidence still supports either monist position. What would you propose be examined to disprove solipsism? Sorry I'm so slow seeing what you are intending as a test.

 

[davidsmith73]

davidsmith,

That is no different than me saying "Objective reality does not exist independently of your experience of it. Every single experience we have is a manifestation of objective reality".

My view is different in one important way. If I am conscious of a hammer in terms of visual, auditory and tactile experience, this hammer does not exist independently from these experiences regardless of whether you choose to call this non-ontological independent existence "objective".

You are mistakenly interpreting objective reality to mean some sort of ontological independence from experiences. That is dualism. All that reality being objective means is that there is more to reality than just your experiences.

So your definition of objectivity would view the hammer as existing independently from the visual, auditory and tactile experiences of the hammer, correct ? The hammer would exist in the absence of those experiences.

Ok , I can see how this would not involve a separate ontological existence.

However, my view does not involve this definition of objectivity and this is why. I shall take objectivity to mean the existence of a thing in the absence of the experience of that thing. I view reality to be experiential. No thing can exist in the absence of an experience of that thing.

I have no need to change it. Not only did you misinterpret it, but it is quite clear that you misinterpreted it, since I clarified within the definition that I was not referring to any kind of ontological separateness, but instead only to the fact that there is more to reality than just your awareness of it.

My mistake, sorry. So how do you figure that my view entails objectivity ? I have clearly stated that reality is experiential. This means that there can be no more to it than your experience of it.

Me: The single realm of Consciousness does not objectively exist. It is experiential by definition.

Stimpy: By whose definition? Are you really claiming there is nothing more than just your experiences? Are you really a solipsist? If so, why are you arguing with yourself?

By my definition. I don't put a label on my view. You can call it solipsism if you want. I don't really know what that would mean. I am claiming that no aspect of reality, including the single realm of Consciousness, exists without an experience of it. Any individual experience is a manifestation of Consciousness.

Me: Every experience we have is a manifestation of Consciousness and this is the only existence there is.

Stimpy: That is just monism. Monism is a claim about objective reality.

According to our definition of objectivity, my monism cannot be. Consciousness does not exist without an awareness of it. By definition, an awareness of anything must be a manifestation of Consciousness.

What you are aware of is the stuff you are experiencing. When you claim that there are patterns to your experiences, patterns which you are not currently aware of, you are assuming that there is more to reality than just what you are aware of.

I would say that such patterns do not exist if they are not experienced.

The fact that the consciousness circle contains more than just experiences is what makes it objective.

I gave the Venn diagram as an analogy for ontological equivalence. Since I now realise you are not talking about separate ontology I think the analogy is not appropriate for the current definition of objectivity.

If you take any individual experience, it is a manifestation of Consciousness. Consciousness exists experientially so there can be no existence when there are no experiences.

I suppose you could claim it is an ontological claim too, using the right definition of ontological. But the fact remains that it is a claim about something knowable, unlike claims about unknowable ontological substances.

It appears as if this suff of "more than just your experiences" cannot be truly known to exist.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Hammegk,

Examine them all you want, but logic will never be able to tell you which, if either of them, is correct.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True, but I find fewer inconsistencies assuming idealism.

I don't know of any actual inconsistencies with either. At least, not with the most general forms of idealism and ontological materialism. Both metaphysics suffer from the same problems: No verifiability, and no way to distinguish the unverifiable things they claim exist from the unverifiable things they claim do not exist.

You don't need to have faith, or accept any "gentlemen's agreement". There is plenty of supporting evidence.
Dr. Stupid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yup, and that evidence still supports either monist position. What would you propose be examined to disprove solipsism? Sorry I'm so slow seeing what you are intending as a test.

The evidence does not support either monist position, because as you just pointed out, it is consistent with both. It only supports the falsifiable theory I presented, namely that I am just another person.


davidsmith,

That is no different than me saying "Objective reality does not exist independently of your experience of it. Every single experience we have is a manifestation of objective reality".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My view is different in one important way. If I am conscious of a hammer in terms of visual, auditory and tactile experience, this hammer does not exist independently from these experiences regardless of whether you choose to call this non-ontological independent existence "objective".

Exactly. I am claiming that the hammer exists, and you are claiming that it does not, but that instead some inherently unknowable part of consciousness does, which is creating the illusion of the hammer.

We are both assuming the existence of something more than just the experiences. The only difference is that I am assuming that it is possible for me to extract information about this external world from my observations, and you are assuming that it is not.

I have no need to change it. Not only did you misinterpret it, but it is quite clear that you misinterpreted it, since I clarified within the definition that I was not referring to any kind of ontological separateness, but instead only to the fact that there is more to reality than just your awareness of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My mistake, sorry. So how do you figure that my view entails objectivity ? I have clearly stated that reality is experiential. This means that there can be no more to it than your experience of it.

You are playing word games here. You have implicitly assumed the existence of more than just your experiences. All you are doing is arbitrarily calling this stuff part of the experiential realm. Calling it that doesn't make it something you experience.

Once again, if you are truly claiming that all that exists is your experiences, then by definition there cannot be any facts about reality that you do not know.

Stimpy: By whose definition? Are you really claiming there is nothing more than just your experiences? Are you really a solipsist? If so, why are you arguing with yourself?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By my definition. I don't put a label on my view. You can call it solipsism if you want. I don't really know what that would mean. I am claiming that no aspect of reality, including the single realm of Consciousness, exists without an experience of it. Any individual experience is a manifestation of Consciousness.

Once again, calling it the "realm of consciousness" doesn't make it any less objective. If you are truly claiming that this realm does not include anything that you do not experience, then yes, that is solipsism.

As soon as you include other people's experiences, you are once again assuming objectivity, because you are assuming that those other people are actually other people, and not just more experiences you are having.

Stimpy: That is just monism. Monism is a claim about objective reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to our definition of objectivity, my monism cannot be. Consciousness does not exist without an awareness of it. By definition, an awareness of anything must be a manifestation of Consciousness.

Do you realize that there is a difference between saying that all experiences are a subset of consciousness, and that consciousness consists only of experiences?

What you are aware of is the stuff you are experiencing. When you claim that there are patterns to your experiences, patterns which you are not currently aware of, you are assuming that there is more to reality than just what you are aware of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would say that such patterns do not exist if they are not experienced.

Unless they are experienced, or unless you are experiencing them? Remember that if you assume other people have experiences too, you have already assumed an objective reality.

If you take any individual experience, it is a manifestation of Consciousness. Consciousness exists experientially so there can be no existence when there are no experiences.

Yes, I understand that this is your position. But if you are claiming that there is more to reality than just your experiences, then you have assumed reality is objective.

I suppose you could claim it is an ontological claim too, using the right definition of ontological. But the fact remains that it is a claim about something knowable, unlike claims about unknowable ontological substances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It appears as if this suff of "more than just your experiences" cannot be truly known to exist.

Of course it can. You just have to discard the ridiculous notion of absolute knowledge. I know that the World around me exists. To claim that is unknowable is nothing more than to define "knowledge" in a completely useless way.

As I said before, science provides us with knowledge about objective reality. Without the assumption of objectivity, there is nothing for science to tell us.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Interesting Ian]

I don't know of any actual inconsistencies with either. At least, not with the most general forms of idealism and ontological materialism. Both metaphysics suffer from the same problems: No verifiability, and no way to distinguish the unverifiable things they claim exist from the unverifiable things they claim do not exist.

Just to reiterate, your materialism is just as ontological as idealism. After all you hold the position that:

a) There is a reality which exists in abstraction from any conscious experience of it.

b) This reality has primary reality where as consciousness only enjoys a derived reality. This is because all consciousnesses can be reduced to this primary reality.

 

[Interesting Ian]

DavidSmith73
My view is different in one important way. If I am conscious of a hammer in terms of visual, auditory and tactile experience, this hammer does not exist independently from these experiences regardless of whether you choose to call this non-ontological independent existence "objective".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Exactly. I am claiming that the hammer exists, and you are claiming that it does not, but that instead some inherently unknowable part of consciousness does, which is creating the illusion of the hammer.

I suspect that David is claiming no such thing. If one can see and feel a hammer, feel its weight, swing it so that it impacts on other objects producing effects in the world, then to suggest the hammer is an illusion is I suggest vacuous.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Just to reiterate, your materialism is just as ontological as idealism. After all you hold the position that:

a) There is a reality which exists in abstraction from any conscious experience of it.

That is just the rejection of solipsism. It is an epistemological position, and is one which any non-solipsistic philosophy must make. Call it ontological if you want. I am not interested in such semantic nonsense.

b) This reality has primary reality where as consciousness only enjoys a derived reality. This is because all consciousnesses can be reduced to this primary reality.

First of all, my philosophy makes no such assumption. I make the claim that human conscious is just a part of reality, but that is no different than claiming that anything else that exists is part of reality.

To claim that everything is reducible to consciousness would be a metaphysical claim. To claim that consciousness is a part of reality is simply to acknowledge that it exists.

As for primacy, I only claim that consciousness does not appear to be necessary for reality to exist, based on the evidence that reality existed long before any people did. Once again, this is an epistemological claim, based on observation. It is not a metaphysical assumption.

You can continue to misrepresent my position if you want, but you are just being dishonest.

Exactly. I am claiming that the hammer exists, and you are claiming that it does not, but that instead some inherently unknowable part of consciousness does, which is creating the illusion of the hammer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suspect that David is claiming no such thing. If one can see and feel a hammer, feel its weight, swing it so that it impacts on other objects producing effects in the world, then to suggest the hammer is an illusion is I suggest vacuous.

I would tend to agree, but that is exactly what it would mean to say that there is nothing more to the hammer than your experiences.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Interesting Ian]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to reiterate, your materialism is just as ontological as idealism. After all you hold the position that:

a) There is a reality which exists in abstraction from any conscious experience of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That is just the rejection of solipsism.

No, I believe there is a version of solipsism that simply denies that other people have a inner mental life. Solipsism does not necessarily deny the existence of a material world (a world existing independently of my experiences which gives rise to my perceptual experiences).

Idealism rejects the notion of a material world (ie a non perceptually experienced reality), but normally accepts that other people have inner mental lives.

So idealism and solipsism really have nothing to do with each other.

BTW, one is necessarily committed to metaphysical and ontological positions if one is not a radical solipsist (ie both rejecting an external reality and a fortiori a material world, and rejecting that other people have inner mental lives).

It is an epistemological position,

No this is not correct. If there is a world in abstraction from our perceptions of it, we could never know it. It is an ontological commitment you are making here.

and is one which any non-solipsistic philosophy must make. Call it ontological if you want. I am not interested in such semantic nonsense.

I will indeed call it ontological because that's what it is. If you're interested in communicating in English you also are obliged to call it ontological.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b) This reality has primary reality where as consciousness only enjoys a derived reality. This is because all consciousnesses can be reduced to this primary reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



First of all, my philosophy makes no such assumption. I make the claim that human conscious is just a part of reality, but that is no different than claiming that anything else that exists is part of reality.

You have agreed that consciousness supervenes on the physical. Are you now backing away from that position? Besides, if the physical does not have primary reality then the inherent reasonable position that we cease to exist when we die can no longer be maintained.

To claim that everything is reducible to consciousness would be a metaphysical claim.

It is indeed.

To claim that consciousness is a part of reality is simply to acknowledge that it exists.

Not a particularly bold claim then.

As for primacy, I only claim that consciousness does not appear to be necessary for reality to exist,

Has anyone ever experienced reality in the absence of conscious awareness? We know reality through experiencing it. We cannot know an unexperienced reality exists because one cannot experience an unexperienced reality, by definition. So if we only know a experienced reality exists, and experiences require consciousness, this means that, contrary to what you claim, we can only know about a reality which requires the conscious perception of it.

based on the evidence that reality existed long before any people did.

But how do you know that the past was determined rather than existing in a superposition of possible states?
http://www.discover.com/june_02/featuniverse.html

Once again, this is an epistemological claim, based on observation. It is not a metaphysical assumption.

No, saying the past existed in a concrete sense is metaphysical How could we possibly know it? Anyway, doesn't QM suggest otherwise?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. I am claiming that the hammer exists, and you are claiming that it does not, but that instead some inherently unknowable part of consciousness does, which is creating the illusion of the hammer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suspect that David is claiming no such thing. If one can see and feel a hammer, feel its weight, swing it so that it impacts on other objects producing effects in the world, then to suggest the hammer is an illusion is I suggest vacuous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I would tend to agree, but that is exactly what it would mean to say that there is nothing more to the hammer than your experiences.

Not my experiences in particular. Any experiences whatsoever including the infinite mind's.

 

[Dancing David]

Mr Smith, I have good reason to believe (not know) that a photon that enters my eye may have existed for millions of years, prior to my perception of it.
Is this not proof of the 'objective' reality on the theoretical level.
( If you accept the theory that photons are wavicle that propagte through space at a quantifiable spped.)

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

That is just the rejection of solipsism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I believe there is a version of solipsism that simply denies that other people have a inner mental life. Solipsism does not necessarily deny the existence of a material world (a world existing independently of my experiences which gives rise to my perceptual experiences).

I have never heard of that being referred to as solipsism. It doesn't matter, though. My point still stands. Whether you are an ontological materialist, an idealist, or a naturalist, you have to assume that there is more to reality than just your experiences. Call that whatever you want to.

Idealism rejects the notion of a material world (ie a non perceptually experienced reality), but normally accepts that other people have inner mental lives.

Which is an assumption of objective reality. You are, at the very least, assuming that there is more to other people than just your own experiences of them.

So idealism and solipsism really have nothing to do with each other.

I know.

BTW, one is necessarily committed to metaphysical and ontological positions if one is not a radical solipsist (ie both rejecting an external reality and a fortiori a material world, and rejecting that other people have inner mental lives).

Call it whatever you want, Ian. I am not going to argue semantics with you anymore. If you want to claim that the assumption that there is more to reality than just your experiences, is an ontological or metaphysical one, go right ahead.

The fact remains that it is a necessary epistemological position for the construction of the scientific method. It is an assumption about the nature of our observations, not about something completely unknowable.

It is an epistemological position,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No this is not correct. If there is a world in abstraction from our perceptions of it, we could never know it. It is an ontological commitment you are making here.

That is where you are wrong. The above claim, that we could never know such a world, is an epistemological position. The claim that we can know about such a world is also an epistemological position. This is exactly the point of the scientific method.

If science just assumed the existence of something other than our experiences, without providing some method for acquiring knowledge about it, then that would be metaphysical nonsense. But that isn't what science does. Science assumes an objective reality, and then provides a logical framework for learning about that objective reality by observing it.

That is the key point. The scientific method connects this objective reality to our experiences, by assuming that reality functions according to logical rules, and that those rules can be inferred from our observations.

The simple fact is that we do have a considerable amount of knowledge about objective reality. Sure, that knowledge is all contingent on the assumption that reality is objective, but it is knowledge nonetheless.

First of all, my philosophy makes no such assumption. I make the claim that human conscious is just a part of reality, but that is no different than claiming that anything else that exists is part of reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have agreed that consciousness supervenes on the physical. Are you now backing away from that position?

I don't recall ever agreeing to that. What I do recall is being completely baffled by what you mean by supervenience, since on one hand you described it as being equivalent to descriptive reductionism, and on the other hand you asserted that it was metaphysical.

I'm not going to play these word games with you Ian. You want me to use terms like "supervenience" and "ontology" so that you can insist that they mean something that contradicts my position.

Besides, if the physical does not have primary reality then the inherent reasonable position that we cease to exist when we die can no longer be maintained.

If we do not make any metaphysical assumptions about ontological primacy, and instead rely on science to reveal the logical relationships between consciousness and other stuff, then the hypothesis that our minds cease to exist when we die is clearly well-supported by the empirical evidence.

Human consciousness is pretty clearly a physical process in the brain. You can speculate all you want about non-human consciousness, meta-minds, Gods, and unknown aspects of human consciousness. I am not interested in such nonsense.

To claim that consciousness is a part of reality is simply to acknowledge that it exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not a particularly bold claim then.

So what's the problem then? Why make any metaphysical assumptions about role of consciousness in reality? Why not simply leave it up to science to determine what its role is?

As for primacy, I only claim that consciousness does not appear to be necessary for reality to exist,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Has anyone ever experienced reality in the absence of conscious awareness?

That question is meaningless.

We know reality through experiencing it. We cannot know an unexperienced reality exists because one cannot experience an unexperienced reality, by definition. So if we only know a experienced reality exists, and experiences require consciousness, this means that, contrary to what you claim, we can only know about a reality which requires the conscious perception of it.

That does not follow at all. The fact that our only source of knowledge about reality is through our experiences, in no way implies that the existence of reality ontologically depends on our experiences.

based on the evidence that reality existed long before any people did.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But how do you know that the past was determined rather than existing in a superposition of possible states?
http://www.discover.com/june_02/featuniverse.html

That link is philosophical nonsense, not science. It is also irrelevant to the issue. You cannot refute the fact that the Universe has existed longer than people have, without completely throwing out the very idea of scientific evidence.

Once again, this is an epistemological claim, based on observation. It is not a metaphysical assumption.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, saying the past existed in a concrete sense is metaphysical

I have no idea what you mean by a "concrete sense". At the very least, we must assume that it is possible to learn about the past by making observations now.

How could we possibly know it?

The same way we know anything. By constructing falsifiable theories, and testing them.

Anyway, doesn't QM suggest otherwise?

No, it doesn't. Certain metaphysical interpretations of QM do. That is irrelevant, since they are just blind speculation.

I would tend to agree, but that is exactly what it would mean to say that there is nothing more to the hammer than your experiences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not my experiences in particular. Any experiences whatsoever including the infinite mind's.

Like I said, you are assuming the existence of an objective reality, by claiming that the infinite mind, which is not just a subset of your experiences, actually exists.


Dr. Stupid

 

[davidsmith73]

Exactly. I am claiming that the hammer exists, and you are claiming that it does not, but that instead some inherently unknowable part of consciousness does, which is creating the illusion of the hammer.

Well, the hammer does not really exist in an important sense according to both our views. In your view the hammer is a manifestation of a fundamental objective reality but it is a reality that exists regardless of any experience of its manifestations.

The hammer does not exist according to my view also. The experience of a hammer is a manifestation of Consciousness.

The difference is that the fundamental reality that manifests my hammer is contained within all the individual experiences that make the illusion of this thing I have called a hammer. There cannot be an instance whereby Consciousness exists without experiences. If you like, individual experiences consist of Consciousness.

I haven't made the claim that Consciousness is unknowable.

We are both assuming the existence of something more than just the experiences.

No. There is no more to Consciousness than is contained within any individual experience.

Me: So how do you figure that my view entails objectivity ? I have clearly stated that reality is experiential. This means that there can be no more to it than your experience of it

Stimpy: You are playing word games here. You have implicitly assumed the existence of more than just your experiences. All you are doing is arbitrarily calling this stuff part of the experiential realm. Calling it that doesn't make it something you experience.

Whats with all this "word games" and "thats just semantics" excuse all the time ? Can I not express meaning through words or something ? If I'm changing my meanings to suit the argument then by all means (no pun intended) point out where.

Where have I assumed the existence of more than just your experiences ?

Once again, if you are truly claiming that all that exists is your experiences, then by definition there cannot be any facts about reality that you do not know.

I don't follow this

Once again, calling it the "realm of consciousness" doesn't make it any less objective. If you are truly claiming that this realm does not include anything that you do not experience, then yes, that is solipsism.

What makes this realm not objective is that it is nothing more than Experience itself and Experience itself is expressed through every individual experience we can identify. What part of this do you not understand ?

Do you realize that there is a difference between saying that all experiences are a subset of consciousness, and that consciousness consists only of experiences?

Why don't you tell me the difference. Then I'll figure out if its relevant to what I'm saying.

Unless they are experienced, or unless you are experiencing them? Remember that if you assume other people have experiences too, you have already assumed an objective reality.

The issue of other people having experiences is very interesting and I don't think as clear cut to this debate as you make out. I haven't figured out my position on that yet. Next post maybe.

Me: It appears as if this suff of "more than just your experiences" cannot be truly known to exist.

Stimpy: Of course it can. You just have to discard the ridiculous notion of absolute knowledge.

Why is it ridiculous ? I have absolute knowledge of the nature of redness. That is what I mean when something can be truly known to exist.

 

[davidsmith73]

Mr Smith, I have good reason to believe (not know) that a photon that enters my eye may have existed for millions of years, prior to my perception of it.
Is this not proof of the 'objective' reality on the theoretical level.
( If you accept the theory that photons are wavicle that propagte through space at a quantifiable spped.)

You only know about the history of the electron through experience. Descriptive theories are constructed from our experiences therefore the concept of the electron traveling through space/time before your perception of it is a constructed fiction.

 

[davidsmith73]

Ian,


That link is philosophical nonsense, not science. It is also irrelevant to the issue. You cannot refute the fact that the Universe has existed longer than people have, without completely throwing out the very idea of scientific evidence.

Didn't like some of the questions being asked eh ?

Thanks for the link Ian. At least some intelligent people are not too scared to think about Consciousness in a different way.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

davidsmith,

Exactly. I am claiming that the hammer exists, and you are claiming that it does not, but that instead some inherently unknowable part of consciousness does, which is creating the illusion of the hammer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, the hammer does not really exist in an important sense according to both our views. In your view the hammer is a manifestation of a fundamental objective reality but it is a reality that exists regardless of any experience of its manifestations.

Huh? I am in no way suggesting that the hammer does not exist. I am claiming that the hammer does exist, and is a part of objective reality.

The hammer does not exist according to my view also. The experience of a hammer is a manifestation of Consciousness.

What does that mean? Is it a part of consciousness, or not?

The difference is that the fundamental reality that manifests my hammer is contained within all the individual experiences that make the illusion of this thing I have called a hammer. There cannot be an instance whereby Consciousness exists without experiences. If you like, individual experiences consist of Consciousness.

Yes, I get all that. What I want to know is whether you are claiming there is nothing more to consciousness, and thus reality, then just your experiences?

We are going around in circles here. Could you just clearly state, once and for all, whether you believe there is more to reality than just your experiences?

I haven't made the claim that Consciousness is unknowable.

If there is nothing more to consciousness than just your experiences, then there is nothing to know about it that you do not already.

We are both assuming the existence of something more than just the experiences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. There is no more to Consciousness than is contained within any individual experience.

So all of consciousness is contained within a single experience? You are not making any sense here.

Me: So how do you figure that my view entails objectivity ? I have clearly stated that reality is experiential. This means that there can be no more to it than your experience of it

Stimpy: You are playing word games here. You have implicitly assumed the existence of more than just your experiences. All you are doing is arbitrarily calling this stuff part of the experiential realm. Calling it that doesn't make it something you experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whats with all this "word games" and "thats just semantics" excuse all the time ? Can I not express meaning through words or something ? If I'm changing my meanings to suit the argument then by all means (no pun intended) point out where.

When you use the term "consciousness" to refer to the totality of existence, and then claim that because you have arbitrarily decided to call reality "consciousness" that this somehow makes that reality non-objective.

Where have I assumed the existence of more than just your experiences ?

Not my experiences, your experiences. The simple fact that you believe I also have experiences implies that you have assumed that there is more to reality than just your experiences.

Once again, if you are truly claiming that all that exists is your experiences, then by definition there cannot be any facts about reality that you do not know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't follow this

Any fact about reality that you do not already know, must necessarily be something which you have not experienced. If all that exists is your experiences, then you have experienced the totality of existence. What is left for you to know?

Once again, calling it the "realm of consciousness" doesn't make it any less objective. If you are truly claiming that this realm does not include anything that you do not experience, then yes, that is solipsism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What makes this realm not objective is that it is nothing more than Experience itself and Experience itself is expressed through every individual experience we can identify. What part of this do you not understand ?

What do you mean by "Experience"? Clearly you are talking about something more than just your own experiences?

You keep using the word "we". What is this we you speak of? Are you assuming that I have experiences too? If so, then you are assuming that my experiences exist, but my experiences are not your experiences. That means that there is more to reality than just your experiences.

Even if you assume that all that exists is experiences, as soon as you assume that there are experiences which are not your experiences, you are assuming an objective reality.

Do you realize that there is a difference between saying that all experiences are a subset of consciousness, and that consciousness consists only of experiences?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why don't you tell me the difference. Then I'll figure out if its relevant to what I'm saying.

Wow. That was a rhetorical question. It never occurred to me that you actually might not understand the difference.

The difference is that in the first case, there can be more to consciousness than just experiences, and in the second case, there cannot.

Unless they are experienced, or unless you are experiencing them? Remember that if you assume other people have experiences too, you have already assumed an objective reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The issue of other people having experiences is very interesting and I don't think as clear cut to this debate as you make out. I haven't figured out my position on that yet. Next post maybe.

Are you serious?

Me: It appears as if this suff of "more than just your experiences" cannot be truly known to exist.

Stimpy: Of course it can. You just have to discard the ridiculous notion of absolute knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is it ridiculous ? I have absolute knowledge of the nature of redness. That is what I mean when something can be truly known to exist.

Double wow. You really are a solipsist, aren't you? Amazing.

I think we are done here. If you don't even believe I exist as anything more than a figment of your imagination, then there is not much point in me trying to reason with you.


Dr. Stupid

 

[hammegk]

That link is philosophical nonsense, not science. It is also irrelevant to the issue. You cannot refute the fact that the Universe has existed longer than people have, without completely throwing out the very idea of scientific evidence.

One trouble with the cat in the box is "what consciousness needs to observe the experiment for an outcome to exist; homo sap? the cat? the uranium atom? the decay particle? ???. Idealism does not necessarily purport that "people" are the only possible event observers.

And are you saying that Wheeler's thinking on photon path(s) is not proper science?

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Davidsmith,

You only know about the history of the electron through experience. Descriptive theories are constructed from our experiences therefore the concept of the electron traveling through space/time before your perception of it is a constructed fiction.

Your obvious attempt to invalidate science by equating scientific theories with substantial supporting evidence to "constructed fictions" is duly noted.

That link is philosophical nonsense, not science. It is also irrelevant to the issue. You cannot refute the fact that the Universe has existed longer than people have, without completely throwing out the very idea of scientific evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Didn't like some of the questions being asked eh ?

What are you talking about? What questions?

Thanks for the link Ian. At least some intelligent people are not too scared to think about Consciousness in a different way.

So this is what you are reduced to? You can't address my arguments, so instead you insinuate that I am close-minded, and afraid to acknowledge the possibility that your silly religious beliefs might be true?

Why should I be afraid? Certainly it would be a lot less frightening to imagine that I am some sort of immortal consciousness, then to accept that I am an organic machine which could be snuffed out of existence at any moment by forces completely beyond my control.

You need courage to accept reality for what it is. Choosing to believe in metaphysical fantasies which grant you immortality and resolves all those nagging doubts about purpose and meaning, requires only intellectual dishonesty.


hammegk,

One trouble with the cat in the box is "what consciousness needs to observe the experiment for an outcome to exist; homo sap? the cat? the uranium atom? the decay particle? ???. Idealism does not necessarily purport that "people" are the only possible event observers.

Of course it doesn't. Idealism specifically goes out of its way to make sure it doesn't make any testable claims. It merely claims that everything is the way it is because some "meta-mind" decided to make it that way. It is the old "goddidit" explanation, with a funny new hat.

And are you saying that Wheeler's thinking on photon path(s) is not proper science?

I don't know what you are specifically referring to. Wheeler did a lot of good physics. He has also done a lot of philosophical speculation. Can you tell the difference? That link Ian gave was about philosophy, not science.

Incidentally, this is a really annoying double standard on the part of people like Ian. If I started posting philosophical meanderings of great scientists who agree with my own worldview, and who think Idealism is nonsense, Ian would (rightfully) dismiss them as arguments from authority. But when he finds one physicist whose views seem, at least superficially, to be in some sort of alignment with his own, he uses it to claim that "QM is suggestive of Idealism".


Dr. Stupid

 

[hammegk]

Of course it doesn't. Idealism specifically goes out of its way to make sure it doesn't make any testable claims. It merely claims that everything is the way it is because some "meta-mind" decided to make it that way. It is the old "goddidit" explanation, with a funny new hat.

Who is this god you speak of?

Testable claims? Well, let's see -- any of a plethora of ESP like occurences could disprove materialism -- no substantiated results to date.

Finding the "indivisible A-tom" would substantiate that an objective material world exists -- but would it actually prove that what-is is not infinitely divisible? No substantiated results to date.

Non-idealism claims meta-material makes it that way, and you still have "mind effects brain" vs "brain effects mind", and life vs non-life.

I don't know what you are specifically referring to.

The dual-path problem exhibited by observations of light paths around quasars.

....he uses it to claim that "QM is suggestive of Idealism".
Dr. Stupid

What bothers you is that interpretation is as good as the one you prefer to cling to; Non-life makes life, brain is mind.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

hammegk,

Of course it doesn't. Idealism specifically goes out of its way to make sure it doesn't make any testable claims. It merely claims that everything is the way it is because some "meta-mind" decided to make it that way. It is the old "goddidit" explanation, with a funny new hat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is this god you speak of?

I thought that was pretty clear. The "meta-mind" in idealism is just God with a funny hat. Either way you are attributing the way reality is to the whim of some conscious being.

Testable claims? Well, let's see -- any of a plethora of ESP like occurences could disprove materialism -- no substantiated results to date.

I don't really agree with this. Ontological materialism would not be disproven by this. It is as unfalsifiable as Idealism is. Modern materialism would only be disproven by this if you could demonstrate that these ESP occurrences had no scientific explanation.

Finding the "indivisible A-tom" would substantiate that an objective material world exists -- but would it actually prove that what-is is not infinitely divisible? No substantiated results to date.

You are looking for positive proof. It doesn't work that way. What you need is supporting evidence, and that comes from testing falsifiable theories.

The existence of "indivisible A-toms", as you put it, is not falsifiable. It is also not a component of any modern scientific theory, or scientific worldview, that I know of. It is a naive and outdated concept which was discarded nearly a century ago.

Non-idealism claims meta-material makes it that way, and you still have "mind effects brain" vs "brain effects mind", and life vs non-life.

What do you mean by "non-idealism"? Ontological materialism? Solipsism? Dualism? Pluralism? They all make different claims.

My philosophy makes no assumptions about why things are the way they are. Any aspect of that question which can be answered through science, is left to science to answer. Any aspect of that question which cannot be answered by science, is unknowable and unanswerable.

....he uses it to claim that "QM is suggestive of Idealism".
Dr. Stupid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What bothers you is that interpretation is as good as the one you prefer to cling to; Non-life makes life, brain is mind.

My claim that the human mind is a process of the brain is not a philosophical interpretation. It is a direct falsifiable hypothesis for which there is substantial supporting scientific evidence.

There is nothing metaphysical about that. I am not making any claims about non-human consciousnesses which may, or may not, have created reality. Nor am I making any claims about aspects of human consciousness that I don't already know about, such as the ability for human consciousness to create the physical world, and the false impression that it is just a brain process.

I am claiming only that those aspects of consciousness which I know exist (thought, memory, awareness, etc...) are brain processes. That is a scientific claim, not a metaphysical one. And it is well supported by scientific evidence.


And I have no idea what you mean by "life vs non-life". There is no clear distinction between life and non-life. The line is arbitrary, and no matter where you put it, you will probably be able to find something that lies close enough to the boundary to render the distinction ambiguous.


Dr. Stupid

 

[davidsmith73]

davidsmith,


Huh? I am in no way suggesting that the hammer does not exist. I am claiming that the hammer does exist, and is a part of objective reality.

I was trying to get at the concept of reducing the hammer to different elements. If you take away the head from the handle then the hammer does not exist. And so on and so forth ad infinitum with the remaining parts.

Me: The hammer does not exist according to my view also. The experience of a hammer is a manifestation of Consciousness.

Stimpy: What does that mean? Is it a part of consciousness, or not?

The experiences that make up a "hammer" are manifestations of Consciousness. However, the "hammer" does not exist in the same sense as above. Take away the head from the handle and you experience new manifestations of Consciousness, ad infinitum.

Yes, I get all that. What I want to know is whether you are claiming there is nothing more to consciousness, and thus reality, then just your experiences?

We are going around in circles here. Could you just clearly state, once and for all, whether you believe there is more to reality than just your experiences?

This depends on our meaning of "me" and "you". I've tried to address this further down.

So all of consciousness is contained within a single experience? You are not making any sense here.

Think about what this means in terms of familar concepts. In your view, all of objective reality must be expressed through any aspect of it. The behaviour of an electron or a planet must be an expression of the singular fundamental objective realm of reality. If it were not then the electron would be excluded from this realm.

The same goes for any expression of Consciousness.

Me: If I'm changing my meanings to suit the argument then by all means point out where.

Stimpy: When you use the term "consciousness" to refer to the totality of existence, and then claim that because you have arbitrarily decided to call reality "consciousness" that this somehow makes that reality non-objective.

objectivity = a thing existing in the absence of an experience of that thing.

Consciousness (and therefore any experience) cannot exist in the absence of an experience of it by (my) definition because any experience is an expression of Consciousness.

Thus Consciousness is not objective with respect to the above definition.

Any fact about reality that you do not already know, must necessarily be something which you have not experienced. If all that exists is your experiences, then you have experienced the totality of existence. What is left for you to know?

I don't know

What do you mean by "Experience"? Clearly you are talking about something more than just your own experiences?

No. Think of the electron again. In your view the electron is an expression of "Objective reality". There is nothing more to the electron than this. The same goes for any other aspect of "Objective reality" such as a planet.

If we substitue an electron for an equivalent aspect of my proposed reality, say redness, then redness must be an expression of "Experience" and there can be no more to redness than this.

The differnece is that an electron would exist in the absence of an experience of it. Redness would not, and therefore is not objective.

You keep using the word "we". What is this we you speak of? Are you assuming that I have experiences too? If so, then you are assuming that my experiences exist, but my experiences are not your experiences. That means that there is more to reality than just your experiences.

Even if you assume that all that exists is experiences, as soon as you assume that there are experiences which are not your experiences, you are assuming an objective reality.

I don't agree. For something to be objective it must exist in the absence of an experience of it. The temporal and spatial location of these experiences do not exist in an objective sense just like any of my experiences do not really exist in time or space. Consciousness does not have spatial or temporal properties. Remember that "I" or "you" has two very different meanings; the physical body and the feeling of the self. In my view, both are an experience and are thus subject to the same metaphysic as any other experience.

Do you realize that there is a difference between saying that all experiences are a subset of consciousness, and that consciousness consists only of experiences?

The difference is that in the first case, there can be more to consciousness than just experiences, and in the second case, there cannot.

You would not say that there can be more to objective reality than is expressed through an aspect of it such as an electron. On the other hand you would say that objective reality consists only of its expressed aspects.

Me: I have absolute knowledge of the nature of redness. That is what I mean when something can be truly known to exist.

Stimpy: Double wow. You really are a solipsist, aren't you? Amazing.

What has my definition of true knowledge have to do with solipsism ?

 

[davidsmith73]

Davidsmith,


What are you talking about? What questions?

Why does the universe exist?

Does this mean humans are necessary to the existence of the universe?

Did the universe really exist before you started looking at it ?

Mmm, there's quite a few you seem to have missed.

So this is what you are reduced to? You can't address my arguments, so instead you insinuate that I am close-minded, and afraid to acknowledge the possibility that your silly religious beliefs might be true?

Touched a nerve. Intriguing.