How do we know that places like Narnia do not exist?

uruk said:
That's based on what we know about this one and that we can't find anything that would preclude it. But how do find supporting evidence?
Click to expand...

I haven't the slightest clue. It's just mathematical likelihood, like saying there is probably life on some other planets out there.

Well, we do know that with the laws just so in our universe, we get planets, stars, glaxaies and soforth. If there are to be the same in the other universes, the laws there have to be at least the same as ours. As far as we know.
What kind of universe can you have without gravity, electro-magnetisim, or thermodynamics? Can you have one? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I don't know what it would be without stars... how molecules, or whatever, would form. I don't know how to define "life" on broad enough a scale to encompass different physical laws, and I don't know how many different parameters are involved, here.

All I'm saying is that, since we don't have a clue, really, we can't say with any certainty WHAT such a universe would be like.
 
Yeah_Right said:
And why just 200 posts? Another reason is that I don't come here that often. But that shouldn't stop me from making some sort of comment. Especially on an Interesting Ian thread. I was quite taken aback by the notion that Dawkins statement would be so taken out of context that, intially, all I was going to say is. What the @$%#?? A short but sweet summary of what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

Taken out of context?? Are you completely daft??? How the hell is it remotely taken out of context. Why the hell don't you read my posts?
 
Interesting Ian said:
Taken out of context?? Are you completely daft??? How the hell is it remotely taken out of context. Why the hell don't you read my posts?
Click to expand...

Interesting Ian said:
What arguments does Dawkin's come out with that another world like Narnia, only accessible through magic, doesn't exist? Does he actually come out with any arguments for this assertion?
Click to expand...

Richard Dawkins said:
“The adult world may seem a cold and empty place with no fairies and no Father Christmas, no Toyland or Narnia
Click to expand...

Richard Dawkins dones not assert Narnia does not exist. You misinterpreted his statement and took it out of context.
 
Last edited:
I've taken you off ignore.

PixyMisa said:
Oh yes, I remember Undercover Elephant. :rolleyes: I spent days arguing with him over the point that Chalmers' "Hard Problem Consciousness" is merely a statement about language and so cannot prove anything about consciousness or anything else. He disagreed, of course.

I don't know if all idealists suffer from Berkeley's Demon, but Berkeley himself did. Uh, hence the name. :)
Click to expand...


You're confusing Berkeley with Descartes. Descartes wanted to systematically doubt all things and try to find a bedrock of certain knowledge which he could build upon. This certain knowledge was "I think therefore I am". He was wrong about that of course since the existence of a self is not certain. Indeed materialists necessarily have to deny the existence of the self.

However, even if we acknowledge the self does not exist, consciousness most definitely exists. This is contrary to what the elimitivist materialists maintain and what reductivist materialists ought to maintain.

Oh yes, and if you think the "Hard Problem" of consciousness is merely semantic games, then you have completely failed to understand the problem. The hard problem is conclusive proof that reductive materialism and eliminitivist materialism are false.

I've been busy the past 2 days. You mentioned above about you wishing me to provide a link to what I've written so far for my website. I've been busy the past couple of days making minor alterations to what I've written so far and will provide a link soon. Meanwhile I won't be particiupating in this thread until I've done that. Indeed I'm not going to even read the posts over the last 2 days. It will only encourage me to type out an enraged response like I did to "yeah right", and waste my time in the process.
 
Last edited:
Interesting Ian said:
Misinterpretation?? Who by? Certainly not by me as I have conclusively demonstrated. Read my posts.
Click to expand...

THis is why he wants to retreat to his website - Ian's idea of 'conclusively demonstrating' something is to post about it. Everyone should kindly ignore all refutations and commentaries, and just read his posts, because clearly Ian is always right, and anyone who disagrees is just playing silly buggers.

:rolleyes:

Ian, the day you 'conclusively demonstrate' something is the day that Randi marries Sylvia Brown.
 
Why does Ian think materialists say consciousness can't exist? Oh, wait, I remember - because what he defines as consciousness is a dualist/immaterialist concept anyway, and 'evil science' has stolen and corrupted the idea for their own evil purposes... :p
 
zaayrdragon said:
THis is why he wants to retreat to his website - Ian's idea of 'conclusively demonstrating' something is to post about it. Everyone should kindly ignore all refutations and commentaries, and just read his posts, because clearly Ian is always right, and anyone who disagrees is just playing silly buggers.

:rolleyes:

Ian, the day you 'conclusively demonstrate' something is the day that Randi marries Sylvia Brown.
Click to expand...

Why? Does she keep pissing him about*?

*"Pissing him about" is a UK expression for messing him about.
 
zaayrdragon said:
Why does Ian think materialists say consciousness can't exist? Oh, wait, I remember - because what he defines as consciousness is a dualist/immaterialist concept anyway, and 'evil science' has stolen and corrupted the idea for their own evil purposes... :p
Click to expand...

Reductive materialists cannot hold consciousness exists, but non-reductive materialists can. No materialist can hold that the self exists. Or ratehr the self is an illusion created by the brain.

Consciousness cannot be an illusion because there is no distinction between "illusionary consciousness" and real consciousness.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Misinterpretation?? Who by? Certainly not by me as I have conclusively demonstrated. Read my posts.
Click to expand...

You could consult my previous post for why it appears you have misinterpreted Dawkins. More specificially, I've pointed out three different interpretations you've had, and defending all three as correct is going to take a little effort.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Reductive materialists cannot hold consciousness exists, but non-reductive materialists can. No materialist can hold that the self exists.
Click to expand...

Of course we can. This is like saying, back in the middle-ages, that no materialist can hold that emotion exists. We can conclusively show that emotions exist and how they work. The same is true for consciousness. We know it exists and can, eventually, show how.

Could you tell me the difference between "reductive" materialists and non-reductive ones ?

Consciousness cannot be an illusion because there is no distinction between "illusionary consciousness" and real consciousness.
Click to expand...

Contradiction.

Interesting Ian said:
As I said, no-one ever seems to read my posts.
Click to expand...

Do you even listen to yourself, Ian ? Not only do you think you're better than everybody else, now you victimise yourself. Get a grip!
 
Interesting Ian said:
As I said, no-one ever seems to read my posts. I have already comprehensively refuted everything you have said.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1379330#post1379330
Click to expand...

You did your best to address what was said in that post, I was refering to my comments in this one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1383298&postcount=432

I should have provided a link to clarify I suppose, the term "last post" could require a bit of effort to discover in a large thread.

ETA: corrected link
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Of course we can. This is like saying, back in the middle-ages, that no materialist can hold that emotion exists. We can conclusively show that emotions exist and how they work. The same is true for consciousness.
Click to expand...

You most certainly cannot! You cannot prove that other people are even conscious at all, nevermind they experience emotions! You have no reason to suppose that peoples' bodies are "inhabited" by consciousness since everything we ever do and say is, according to the materialist, due to physical laws.

Reductive materialists cannot hold that emotions exist. They cannot hold that consciousness exists (as I have argued elsewhere) therefore a fortiori they cannot show that emotions exist.
 
Interesting Ian said:
You most certainly cannot! You cannot prove that other people are even conscious at all, nevermind they experience emotions! You have no reason to suppose that peoples' bodies are "inhabited" by consciousness since everything we ever do and say is, according to the materialist, due to physical laws.

Reductive materialists cannot hold that emotions exist. They cannot hold that consciousness exists (as I have argued elsewhere) therefore a fortiori they cannot show that emotions exist.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You are an idiot.

Your first mistake is to assume that consciousness 'inhabits' anything at all. This is, as I like to say, a Ghost in the Machine fallacy. Consciousness, as a thing, does not exist, Ian, therefore we have nothing to show. It is only you who clings to this small, pathetic, idea that somehow consciousness is some physical (or in your case, immaterial) thing that exists in our mind (or wherever) that makes us us, and it is this 'consciousness thing' which is doing all the experiencing. We can, in fact, know if others are conscious. Quite easily, in fact. As, by the nature of materialism, consciousness is the result of physcial processes, all we need to do is measure these processes in another person. Same processes, they get consciousness. Simple, really. Just the same way someone can expect to make the same cake from the same recipe every time, despite small variations in the ingredients.

Stop assuming you know everything, stop assuming you've already answered objections to these stupid notions of yours, and start replying. Materialism does not exclude consciousness, it excludes your notion of consciousness, which is false. Get a grip.
 
Taffer said:
Wrong. You are an idiot.
Click to expand...

Please don't allow that to stop you communicating with me. 13 pages so far, everyone thinks I'm an idiot, yet they also are very anxious to communicate with me anyway.

Your first mistake is to assume that consciousness 'inhabits' anything at all. This is, as I like to say, a Ghost in the Machine fallacy.
Click to expand...

A phrase the metaphysical behaviourist Gilbert Ryle's coined. Metaphysical behaviourists reject the existence of consciousness.

There is a "ghost "in" the machine" in the sense that there is more to a person than their bodies and their behaviour. There is also consciousness.

Consciousness, as a thing, does not exist, Ian, therefore we have nothing to show. It is only you who clings to this small, pathetic, idea that somehow consciousness is some physical (or in your case, immaterial) thing that exists in our mind (or wherever) that makes us us, and it is this 'consciousness thing' which is doing all the experiencing.
Click to expand...

That's true, it is no thing. But neitehr is it a process. A process such as a tap dripping, neurons firing or whatever is not itself conscious even though they arguably elicit consciousness.

We can, in fact, know if others are conscious. Quite easily, in fact. As, by the nature of materialism, consciousness is the result of physcial processes, all we need to do is measure these processes in another person. Same processes, they get consciousness. Simple, really. Just the same way someone can expect to make the same cake from the same recipe every time, despite small variations in the ingredients.
Click to expand...

How do you know that consciousness is the result of physical processes. Perhaps such physical processes do not result in consciousness. Perhaps your consciousness is just a one off. Not that you know the appropriate physical processes occur in your brain anyway since presumably you have never seen the processes within your own brain.

Stop assuming you know everything,
Click to expand...

I don't know anything. I am terribly ignorant of all things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom