Myths in the Making ...

[Mercutio]

I never said it wasn't. I'm saying we really have no means by which to verify that it is ... outside of the "cirularity" of our own thinking that is. And there you have it, we are all legends in our own minds.

...a conclusion, sadly, that comes only when we begin by assuming that minds exist...

You came so close this time. You admit we have no means by which to verify that it is...and then you make the exact same mistake by failing to acknowledge that the existence of mind is equally unverifiable. The materialists claim that what you perceive as mental is physical...the idealists claim that what you perceive as physical is mental. Neither has the means by which to prove their assumption, but that does not stop them from pointing out that the opposing view is lacking...

 

[Taffer]

...a conclusion, sadly, that comes only when we begin by assuming that minds exist...

You came so close this time. You admit we have no means by which to verify that it is...and then you make the exact same mistake by failing to acknowledge that the existence of mind is equally unverifiable. The materialists claim that what you perceive as mental is physical...the idealists claim that what you perceive as physical is mental. Neither has the means by which to prove their assumption, but that does not stop them from pointing out that the opposing view is lacking...

Well put, and true.

 

[Jesus]

I never said it wasn't. I'm saying we really have no means by which to verify that it is ... outside of the "cirularity" of our own thinking that is. And there you have it, we are all legends in our own minds.

There is not circular logic at work here. From a materialist point of view, the fact that everyone perceives our external reality in the same way suggests that it is that external reality that is constant, and therefore real. The external reality is testable, and verifiable.

Obviously, we are all open to evidence to the contrary, but your argument seems to consist only of "What if the external reality is just a figment?" Ok, what if it is? There is no evidence for this, so we work with the best model we have, and that is that there is is a reality outside of our own consciousness. You keep asking what happens if that turns out to be incorrect, but so far, it is correct, unless you have something truly profound to share with us.

Asking "what if" questions is really kind of pointless without facts to back it up.

 

[Jesus]

I think what Iacchus is trying to say is that, while there possibly could be a universe, the only way we can ever possibly know it is through our senses. What a revelation that is. The only difference is that he seems to think this invalidates everything we have ever learned.

Yeah, I get what he is trying to say, I'm just trying to probe a little more deeply into the pseudo-philosophic babble

I have a friend who is a doctor of philosophy, and he doesn't run in circles like this, so I'd like to think there is hope for this debate.

 

[Beleth]

Really? And which "facts" are those?

All of them.

Yes, but how will you know?

You tell me; it's your theory.

Oh, I agree, an external reality is quite believable. However, at what point does it not become a belief? Especially since it cannot be believed once you die.

Sure it can. If there is an external reality, it will be believed in by the people who survive me.

If you are all that exists, then my voice is part of the parameters of your inner self, and as such should be heeded just as much as you heed that voice which you "recognize" as your own. To do otherwise would be irrational.

Only if it could speak to me as if it were me, which it can't.

But my voice is you! You really haven't given solipsism much thought, have you?

 

[Iacchus]

I need not prove the first, as you obviously do not understand science. As to the second, well, just read Jesus' post above.

I understand I have a mind, and that without it there would be no Science.

 

[Mercutio]

I understand I have a mind, and that without it there would be no Science.

You believe you have a mind, and you believe that this is evidence of a great deal more that the rest of us do not think logically follows, and you think that Science is somehow dependent on your world view.

[/translation]

 

[Iacchus]

I need not prove the first, as you obviously do not understand science. As to the second, well, just read Jesus' post above.

If you can't even prove that you exist, what on earth are you doing trying to prove anything else? Perhaps we should begin with the main and, most important question of all, "Why are we here?" If we can't answer that, then why expect the rest of it to make any sense? ... Unless of course we are mere automatons, as Science seems to suggest. But then again, why the need to be conscious, as well as curious? If a machine can be programmed to "behave" in a certain way, why is it necessary for it to be "self-aware?"

 

[Darat]

If you can't even prove that you exist, what on earth are you doing trying to prove anything else? Perhaps we should begin with the main and, most important question of all, "Why are we here?" If we can't answer that, then why expect the rest of it to make any sense? ... Unless of course we are mere automatons, as Science seems to suggest. But then again, why the need to be conscious, as well as curious? If a machine can be programmed to "behave" in a certain way, why is it necessary for it to be "self-aware?"

The main question is actually "What is here?" not "Why are we here?".

You have to be able to define/describe what you mean by "here" before you can start to ask any questions about "here".

You are trying to put the cart before the horse, and that very frequently gets you nowhere.

 

[Iacchus]

You believe you have a mind, and you believe that this is evidence of a great deal more that the rest of us do not think logically follows, and you think that Science is somehow dependent on your world view.

[/translation]

So, what exactly is "it," that is doing the believing? Do you continue to insist that "it" does not exist? It's funny, because it comes across as if "nobody" is really there. All of which makes sense -- I guess? -- because some of us are of the notion that something can come from nothing. Hmm ...

So, exactly what purpose does a machine serve if, its ultimate design serves nothing? Is this in fact why human beings design mahcines, indeed, to serve that nothingness of a quality of, what we might otherwise refer to as "a mind?"

 

[Mercutio]

So, what exactly is "it," that is doing the believing? Do you continue to insist that "it" does not exist? It's funny, because it comes across as if "nobody" is really there. All of which makes sense -- I guess? -- because some of us are of the notion that something can come from nothing. Hmm ...

You really have not been paying attention, have you? There must be half a dozen threads, at minimum, in which you have asked this question and had it answered.

I need not explain the dualist view, because you claim to hold it, even though you don't explain it well. The materialist view is that the thing doing the believing is you. Your physical body. That's all there is to it. There is no evidence that there is any "self", separate and independent from that body, to play any role. Your insistence that there must be something else comes from your assumption that a "mind" is required to do the things that any materialist will say that the body can do perfectly well (I include the brain in the body, of course).

And of course, the usual reminder...the only one making the "something from nothing" claim has been you.

So, exactly what purpose does a machine serve if, its ultimate design serves nothing? Is this in fact why human beings design mahcines, indeed, to serve that nothingness of a quality of, what we might otherwise refer to as "a mind?"

We design machines. This is true. It is because of that that we inferred that we were designed. Not because we were, but because we did not understand natural selection, and did understand the things that we ourselves designed. Most of us know better now.

And again the usual reminder...you tend to conflate two or more meanings of the word "purpose". Something may have purpose in the sense of having utility, without having purpose in the sense of ultimate meaning, or even intentional design. The dictionary is your friend...

 

[Iacchus]

All of them.

And without "a mind," how could you possibly discern this?

You tell me; it's your theory.

No, it's the general theory of materialists that nothing transpires after death.

Sure it can. If there is an external reality, it will be believed in by the people who survive me.

Of course, but what happens to their beliefs when they die?

But my voice is you! You really haven't given solipsism much thought, have you?

"A voice," usually implies "a will" behind that voice. Yet if that voice is not attached to "my will," then it ain't me.

 

[Mercutio]

And without "a mind," how could you possibly discern this?

A yes, the allegedly causal mind, inferred from the very behavior it is supposed to have caused. The very textbook example of circularity.

No, it's the general theory of materialists that nothing transpires after death.

I'm sure you'll have no problem providing a source for your odd interpretation of materialism. Or was it that you simply misunderstood Beleth?

 

[Iacchus]

I need not explain the dualist view, because you claim to hold it, even though you don't explain it well. The materialist view is that the thing doing the believing is you. Your physical body. That's all there is to it. There is no evidence that there is any "self", separate and independent from that body, to play any role. Your insistence that there must be something else comes from your assumption that a "mind" is required to do the things that any materialist will say that the body can do perfectly well (I include the brain in the body, of course).

And this is pure bullsh*t, of course.

And of course, the usual reminder...the only one making the "something from nothing" claim has been you.

If there is no mind which trancends the body, then what purpose does the body serve? Which again, is more evidence against the fact that you are not lying through your teeth.

We design machines. This is true. It is because of that that we inferred that we were designed. Not because we were, but because we did not understand natural selection, and did understand the things that we ourselves designed. Most of us know better now.

What is the purpose of a design, if not to serve a higher purpose?

And again the usual reminder...you tend to conflate two or more meanings of the word "purpose". Something may have purpose in the sense of having utility, without having purpose in the sense of ultimate meaning, or even intentional design. The dictionary is your friend...

And what is "utility," if not a transcendent quality or, higher aspect of design?

 

[Mercutio]

And this is pure bullish*t, of course.

translation: Iacchus does not understand.

If there is no mind which trancends the body, then what purpose does the body serve?

What is the purpose of a design, if not to serve a higher purpose?

And what is "utility," if not a transcendent quality or, higher aspect of "design?"

translation: Merc was right about Iacchus conflating the different meanings of the word "purpose".

 

[Beleth]

And without "a mind," how could you possibly discern this?

How is my discernment a requirement for a fact to exist?
My ego isn't big enough to be able to conclude that.

No, it's the general theory of materialists that nothing transpires after death.

Says who? That sounds like a gross and misleading oversimplification. Please quote someone who agrees with that.

Of course, but what happens to their beliefs when they die?

It will be believed in by the people who survive them.

"A voice," usually implies "a will" behind that voice. Yet if that voice is not attached to "my will," then it ain't me.

Ah ha! You're getting it.
What can we conclude about solipsism if your statement above is true?

 

[Iacchus]

A yes, the allegedly causal mind, inferred from the very behavior it is supposed to have caused. The very textbook example of circularity.

I'm sure you'll have no problem providing a source for your odd interpretation of materialism. Or was it that you simply misunderstood Beleth?

Well, I guess it's my problem that I assumed that you knew what I was talking about.

 

[Iacchus]

How is my discernment a requirement for a fact to exist?

Because it requires consciousness to see that it exists and to repeat it to someone else.

My ego isn't big enough to be able to conclude that.

Meaning "you" have nothing to say? Of course, I already understood that.

Says who? That sounds like a gross and misleading oversimplification. Please quote someone who agrees with that.

Do you believe that an individual's consciousness persists after death? Yes or no?

It will be believed in by the people who survive them.

Isn't this in effect what you already said? ...

Ah ha! You're getting it.
What can we conclude about solipsism if your statement above is true?

What is this "we" ◊◊◊◊? What makes you think that "I" am merely an extension of "you?"

 

[Iacchus]

translation: Iacchus does not understand.

translation: Merc was right about Iacchus conflating the different meanings of the word "purpose".

Are machines designed to serve a higher purpose or not? Yes or no? If not, then what utility do they serve? Obviously none. But then again, why should that matter, if all things are based upon nothing? Correct?

Now, if somehow this does not follow your logic, please tell me where it differs. Okay?

 

[Mercutio]

Well, I guess it's my problem that I assumed that you knew what I was talking about.

And as usual, you are the only one making this assumption.