Nothing exist until after we perceive it

[Upchurch]

Re: Lord elmworth

Do you believe that existence is not a concept?

Interesting question, Antonio

We, as humans, have a concept of existence, but that existence is not the concept we have of it. A good analogy would be a stretch of land and a map of that land. We have the map and through it we understand the stretch of land, but the map is not actually the stretch of land.

Now to turn the question slightly, I would also conceed that concepts have a sort of existence. It wouldn't be the same kind of existence that other things might have. So, it would be inappropriate to say that a conception exists in the same way that an apple exists or in the same way as an emotion exists (even though it's closer to the way an emotion exists than it is to the way an apple exists).

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Definition of Objective Reality

what is the difference between subjective and objective reality?

When refering to subjective and objective there are two elements involved: the subject (the viewer) and the object (that which is viewed)

Subjective is when the truth value is dependent on the subject.
Objective is when the truth value is dependent on the object.

For example:
Bob says, "That woman is pretty."
This is subjective because its truth value is determined by the subject, Bob. The statement may be true for Bob but not be true for another subject.

Bob says, "That man is 5 foot, 10 inches tall."
This is objective because its truth value is determined by the object. The statement if the statement is true for Bob, it is true for another subject.

There is caveat to this definition. Objectivity can be subject to relativity. I'm not speaking specifically of the Einstein version, but it does fit under this category.

Relative objectivity is when the truth value is dependent on the object as seen by a specific subject.

For example:
Bob, wearing rose colored glasses, says, "That dog is red."
The truth value of this statement is conditional on observing the object in the same manner as the subject making the statement. While the truth value of the statement may not be the same for all subjects, all subjects that view the object in the same manner as the subject making the statement will agree on the truth value of the statement.

Do you consider 1+1=2 objective?

As defined above, yes. All observers who correctly understand the meanings of "1", "+", "=" and "2" will asign a truth value of "true" to the statement "1+1=2"

Are you saying that objective reality is conceptual?

I would say it can be but isn't limited to being conceptual.

Do you believe that objective reality is a species-specific agreement based on what they perceive. or do you feel it is universal.

By definition, objective reality would be universal for all observers.

If you consider 1+1=2 to be Objective, then how do you explain the non-intrinsic nature of each of the symbols, that their meaning is only relational?

Okay, the tough one.

One of the conditions that ultimately makes most, if not all, objectivity fall under the category of relative objectivity is that we agree on the definitions of the words (or however we generate the statements) we are using.

Perhaps someone has different definitions for the symbols "1", "+", "=" and "2" that makes the statement "1+1=2" false. However, they would still agree that by the definitions used by the subject who states "1+1=2 is a true statement" is a true statement.

 

[Franko]

About a billion years ago, give or take a few, there was no life on Earth. Yet it [the Earth] must have existed, otherwise life would not have appeared. So, without anybody/anything percieving it, Earth existed. -And, I consider Earth to fit the label "matter".

Or equally probable:

1) A single entity “appeared” (call her TLOP) instead of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and conceived of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and now you are just receiving information from that entity (you’re a figment of his/her/its imagination).

2) The Earth doesn’t exist, and life never “appeared” on it. You “appeared” all by yourself, and now you are just imagining the rest.

What evidence exist that makes your explanation more likely than either of these two?

 

[Antonio Alejandro]

mind does not exist

"...One cannot say that mind exist or not exist for it is absolute reality."
some Taoist sutra I read a long time ago.

A skeptic is walking down the street and passes several houses before he comes to a stop. He looks around and shouts, I have stopped!!!
I most surely have stopped. A little boy with a propeller cap looks at the skeptics and says, mr you have not stopped you are still moving. Nonsense young man, the skeptic exclaims, as he stamps his feet onto the ground. I have stopped, and i have concrete and verifiable evidence. The skeptic then looks in his pocket and pulls out a ruler a lays it parallel to his feet. You see young man, there is no evidence that i have travelled because had I traveled i would be able to measure the distance by this ruler. But i am stationary, can you see that young man"? The little boy proceeds to explain and says: You have stopped only in relation to your surrounding but in fact you are still in motion. The earth revolves and so you being on the planet earth you are still in motion. The skeptic stamps his foot even harder saying. Can you see how concretely I have measured the lack of movement. I have not moved one inch, how can you say i am moving. The little boy says, you have only stopped in relation to the ruler and the immediate surrounding but you are still in motion because the galaxies solar system is in motion and so are the galaxies. In fact the concept of "stop" has no intrinsic existence, it exist only in relation to some other attribute. This is the way it is for everything that we call conceptual reality. This inability for us to know anything intrinsically may not be the way the universe is but a phenomena resulting from the thought process.
Rastabastapaperclip says the skeptic., now madder and more furious than ever, you clearly do not understand the fundamentals of science and of mathematics. There are specific laws of science which are universal whether we observe them or not. They are concrete, like my measurement of my lack of motion. You need education boy.
The skeptic clearly infuriated begins to walk away and as he walks away he says to the little boy, "you see now i am in motion!

 

[Upchurch]

Re: mind does not exist

A skeptic is walking down the street and ...

Yes, Antonio, this is a relative objective truth as I described above.

Incidently, in inertial reference frames, it is equally true to say that the skeptic is standing skill and the rest of the universe is what is moving.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Re: mind does not exist


A skeptic is walking down the street and passes several houses before he comes to a stop. He looks around and shouts, I have stopped!!!

Your story is stupid and doesn't properly illustrate a skeptic's point of view. In fact, your story is just a big giant insult, isn't it? You are a troll.

 

[Yahweh]

--------------------------------------------------
Upchurch:
But "mind" is unnecessary as well.
--------------------------------------------------

So you are claiming that your mind is an illusion?

I hate to break it to you but putting words in another's mouth is not a good way to present an arguement.

--------------------------------------------------
quote:Wouldn't it be even more simple, more parsimonious if there were nothing at all, not even mind?
--------------------------------------------------

Okay, so there is nothing at all … just the mind of the person reading this post.

That isnt what he suggested.

--------------------------------------------------
quote:You've not justified why matter is discardable but the mind is not.
--------------------------------------------------

You are the one claiming that information is actually matter. I am simply asking you and your Atheist friends to prove your assertion. So far I see a lot of obfuscation, logical fallacy and question dodging, but I haven’t seen any argument that information actually exist as anything other than information.

Shifting the burden of proof...
Arguement from Ignorance...
I could go on...

I dont understand what you mean by information.

And talk about dodging assertions, I've made repeated replies to your posts.

--------------------------------------------------
quote: If there is no mind then I cannot tell you …
--------------------------------------------------

Can’t tell me what?

Great argument!

--------------------------------------------------
quote1) because I don't exist to tell you
--------------------------------------------------

Upchurch, for a long Time I have been saying that Atheism is essentially the same as Solipsism. Now you seem to be agreeing.

Atheism is nothing like Solipsism, to think such a thing would be absurd.

UpChurch is in no way agreeing with you. Again, making other's assertions for them is not a good way to present an arguement.

--------------------------------------------------
quote: and (2) there is no you to tell.
--------------------------------------------------

Because I am a figment of the reader’s imagination?

Absurdity.

--------------------------------------------------
quote:All this would be merely an illusion. For who or what's benefit would beyond knowing.
--------------------------------------------------

At least to us figments …

Your circular reasoning is getting you no where.

Furthermore (from a Solipsistic point of view), "at least to us figments" make the assumptions "figments" exist seperately from whatever Omni-mind is projecting reality. "At least to us figments" is a self-defeating phrase, I'd call it a logical contradiction.

--------------------------------------------------
quote: Isn't this precisely what you do with your solipsism and "figment of your imagination" arguments? When you ask me to prove that I'm not the only mind in the universe, I ask you prove that the mind (mine or anyone elses) exists at all.
--------------------------------------------------

Yes, but if Solipsism is true then YOU are the only MIND that is capable of proving anything at all.

Incorrect.

Furthermore, Solipsism is not true, the notion of being the only mind is not only absurd but the properties itself would be self-defeating. He should be omnipotent, yet he is clearly bound by the laws of physics, he exists withing the laws of logic, he is not omniscient, he cant do anything that he couldnt do in a material universe.

The idea has been dismissed since the 19th century, its not held in very high regard by Philosophers today.

You need to stop relying on priest to do your thinking for you. If Solipsism is true there are no priest.

You dont understand the concept of religion, do you?

Furthermore, as I've stated before: To explain things in terms of "its all an illusion" is to explain exactly nothing. It is not an arguement of any kind of value. It would almost be easier to assume we are in the Matrix...

--------------------------------------------------
quote:I merely taking your reasoning to it's conclusion where I am skeptical of not only the reality represented by my senses but of the reality represented by my internal senses as well. Why reject one, but not the other?
--------------------------------------------------

What exactly are your “internal senses”? Are there little eyes and ears inside your mind?

The little eyes and the little ears are not inside the mind, they exist objectively.

I'm not sure exactly what UpChurch means regarding "internal senses". I doubt he is referring to the intangible senses (the notion of intangible senses has been long dismissed, but in any case they would include a "sense" of humor, "sense" of justice, "sense" of etc. etc. etc). Perhaps he is making reference to cognition.

Explain again why you believe that Information is actually hard stuff called Matter???

Matter exists objectively, everything in the universe can be explain in terms of matter and natural phenomena. It is absurd to believe matter does not exist or its all an illusion. Without matter, nothing would exist, I clearly do exist so its a safe assumption to say "yeah, matter exists".

If that short little summary doesnt help, I could give you a detailed lesson in Cosmology...

--------------------------------------------------
quote:Franko:
I would classify all incoming information as INPUTS (Perception), all outgoing information as OUTPUTS (Expression (Speech, action)), and all internal manipulation of information as PROCESSING (Cognition).

Upchurch:
Incoming from and outgoing to where?
--------------------------------------------------

Internal = Contained within your own mind.
External = Outside of your own mind.

Fine by me.

--------------------------------------------------
quote:… The physical world? How do you know that exists?
--------------------------------------------------

You don’t![/quote]
Solipsism is an irrational and illogical form of skepticism, it doesnt even register on anything that could be called "reasoning".

But YOU are the one that claimed Solipsism was a dead end … not "me".

I believe I've said Solipsism explains nothing a few times...

--------------------------------------------------
quote:When you express, speak or act, where are you doing all this?
--------------------------------------------------

Whenever you Express yourself you are outputting information. Whether or not anyone exist to perceive this information is an entirely separate question. One that you and your “friends” seem reluctant to consider for some strange reason?

Your assumption is purely semantical.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A lot of the middle stuff is garble, I'll skip right to the end...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well the fact that I don’t accept things based on no evidence what-so-ever is precisely why I cannot accept that what is only Information actually has an independent existence as Matter.

Everything you present rests without any evidence what-so-ever, do you so hideously contradict yourself like this to amuse us?

I cannot accept your religion based solely on blind faith and logically fallacious arguments.

Atheism is not a religion.
Neither Materialism nor Naturalism are religions.

Apparently you can. I actually require proof/logic for ALL my beliefs including my religious ones.

I guess you do like to amuse us...

 

[Yahweh]

Well, if I am imagining a planet with continents and oceans and entire races of people with diverse histories then my little imaginary planet doesn’t exist in your mind until I tell you about it (until you perceive it), so I don’t see what is so difficult for you to grasp about this concept.

The little planet you imagined planet does not exist objectively, furthermore the things you imagine in your mind do not alter objective reality. You appear to believe the opposite, that's why your concept is so hard to grasp.

I think what is causing the confusion is Objective Reality, or the universe. The fact is that until you perceived it, it didn’t exist in your mind (it didn’t exist for you), but the question is did it exist for anyone else?

Making up your own "facts" is a terrible way to present your arguements.

Whether or not it exists in my mind is irrelevant, it will continue to exist regardless if I've conceived to percieved it.

Nothing exists until after someone perceives (or conceives of) it.

Entirely incorrect.

How can you exist before you perceived your existence?

I was a fetus, I existed before I was ever sentient.

That sounds like you are claiming your Soul exists eternally even if you are unaware (unperceiving) of it?

Putting words in other's mouths is a terrible way to make an arguement.

How can “You” exist before you perceive yourself? Isn’t self-awareness a requisite for bona fide existence (at least as a consciousness)?

Entirely Incorrect, self-awareness is not a prerequisite for existence (what did I tell you about making up your own facts).

 

[Upchurch]

I'm not sure exactly what UpChurch means regarding "internal senses". I doubt he is referring to the intangible senses (the notion of intangible senses has been long dismissed, but in any case they would include a "sense" of humor, "sense" of justice, "sense" of etc. etc. etc). Perhaps he is making reference to cognition.

I was speaking within context of the assumption that there is no physical world. In such a context, the external senses (i.e. sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell), are not conveyed by physical means (i.e. eyes, ears, skin, tongue, nose), but by some undefined mechanism that feeds the sensations directly into the mind.

Internal senses, then, would be those "inputs" we get that are not originated by what we imagine to be our external senses. Memories would be a prime example. We can still see what our friends looked like when they were younger. Our smell food that our moms were cooking. Those inputs which don't originate from the external world.

Another example would be thought. When we have an internal dialogue, we "hear" that thought. That could also be considered an internal sense in that one experiences it. And experience comes through the senses.

The catch is that in the assumption that there is no physical world, internal senses and external senses are the same thing. It is only our belief in the physical world that creates the illusion that there is a difference.

However, if our some of our inputs (specifically those of the physical world) are illusionary, there is every possibility, and in fact a probability, that all of our inputs are illusionary, including those we imagine come from within our own minds.

That's what I mean by "internal senses". Those which allow us to perceive the going-on's within the mind and even to perceive the mind itself. In the above context, there is no difference between the external and internal senses and, based on that context, all of it may be a false illusion.

 

[Yahweh]

Re: mind does not exist

"...One cannot say that mind exist or not exist for it is absolute reality."
some Taoist sutra I read a long time ago.

That quote is a classic example of Solipsitic absurdity.

A skeptic is walking down the street and passes several houses before he comes to a stop. He looks around and shouts, I have stopped!!!
I most surely have stopped. A little boy with a propeller cap looks at the skeptics and says, mr you have not stopped you are still moving. Nonsense young man, the skeptic exclaims, as he stamps his feet onto the ground. I have stopped, and i have concrete and verifiable evidence. The skeptic then looks in his pocket and pulls out a ruler a lays it parallel to his feet. You see young man, there is no evidence that i have travelled because had I traveled i would be able to measure the distance by this ruler. But i am stationary, can you see that young man"? The little boy proceeds to explain and says: You have stopped only in relation to your surrounding but in fact you are still in motion. The earth revolves and so you being on the planet earth you are still in motion. The skeptic stamps his foot even harder saying. Can you see how concretely I have measured the lack of movement. I have not moved one inch, how can you say i am moving. The little boy says, you have only stopped in relation to the ruler and the immediate surrounding but you are still in motion because the galaxies solar system is in motion and so are the galaxies.

Yes, everyone recognized the word "frame of reference". The skeptic is stationary in his frame of reference, he is also stationary in the little boy's frame of reference.

If I'm sitting on a plane that is whipping around the world at 400 km/h, I am sitting still in my own frame of reference. To someone on the ground, I'm zipping by at 400 km/h, to my frame of reference the person on the ground is zipping by in the other direction at 400 km/h. If you have ever taken a highschool Physics class, you would learn all about "frame of reference" on the first day, you would also learn that for practical purposes we use the Earth as the indirectly named frame of reference

In fact the concept of "stop" has no intrinsic existence, it exist only in relation to some other attribute. This is the way it is for everything that we call conceptual reality.

The example you used is not a good example to demonstrate "conceptual reality".

Your example would be better attributed to the concept of "down". Which way is down? What about if I'm floating somewhere in space? Of course, again, using directional concepts is again defeated by the frames of reference.

This inability for us to know anything intrinsically may not be the way the universe is but a phenomena resulting from the thought process.

Its a phenomena attributed to frame of reference.

Rastabastapaperclip says the skeptic., now madder and more furious than ever, you clearly do not understand the fundamentals of science and of mathematics. There are specific laws of science which are universal whether we observe them or not. They are concrete, like my measurement of my lack of motion. You need education boy.

Rastabastapaperclip clearly does not understand the concept of "concepts". He also doesnt appear to have much in the way of distinguishing between concepts and laws of science.

The skeptic clearly infuriated begins to walk away and as he walks away he says to the little boy, "you see now i am in motion!

The skeptic is the correct one.

 

[Yahweh]

I was speaking within context of the assumption that there is no physical world. In such a context, the external senses (i.e. sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell), are not conveyed by physical means (i.e. eyes, ears, skin, tongue, nose), but by some undefined mechanism that feeds the sensations directly into the mind.

Internal senses, then, would be those "inputs" we get that are not originated by what we imagine to be our external senses. Memories would be a prime example. We can still see what our friends looked like when they were younger. Our smell food that our moms were cooking. Those inputs which don't originate from the external world.

Another example would be thought. When we have an internal dialogue, we "hear" that thought. That could also be considered an internal sense in that one experiences it. And experience comes through the senses.

The catch is that in the assumption that there is no physical world, internal senses and external senses are the same thing. It is only our belief in the physical world that creates the illusion that there is a difference.

However, if our some of our inputs (specifically those of the physical world) are illusionary, there is every possibility, and in fact a probability, that all of our inputs are illusionary, including those we imagine come from within our own minds.

That's what I mean by "internal senses". Those which allow us to perceive the going-on's within the mind and even to perceive the mind itself. In the above context, there is no difference between the external and internal senses and, based on that context, all of it may be a false illusion.

Ahhhh, I get it now. Thanks . (It reminds me of the "brain in a vat" scenario.)

Qualia and such, its fun stuff to debate about.

 

[Upchurch]

(It reminds me of the "brain in a vat" scenario.)

except without the brain, vat, or the ability to think.

 

[whitefork]

I remember a bit from Hegel where he talks about the form and matter of logic, or perhaps thought. I wish I could find that source. It's bugged me for years.

The matter of logic. What a concept.

You got some good comic timing going here, Upchurch and Yahweh. You should take the act on the road. I'd say the quality of these threads has improved since the last time this game was played.

 

[Upchurch]

You got some good comic timing going here, Upchurch and Yahweh. You should take the act on the road. I'd say the quality of these threads has improved since the last time this game was played.

Q: Why did the absurdist cross the road?

A: Seventeen fish sticks.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

Re: Definition of Objective Reality

Impy what is the difference between subjective and objective reality?

I thought I already explained it again and again. If you can't understand me or other people here explaining it, perhaps you should try and figure it out yourself. Remember the whole mystic crap you came up with? After being asked for an explanation you told us to look it up ourselves... Now here you are asking me to explain to you the difference. There's one word for you. Hypocrite.

Do you consider 1+1=2 objective? Are you saying that objective reality is conceptual?

You're setting up a strawman. Yahweh already explained very nicely that 1, +, = and 2 are conceptual representations that we have come to associate with certain objective things. 1+1=2 by itself is a concept. The meaning behind 1+1=2 is objective reality representation (putting two objects together results in two objects sitting together)

Do you believe that objective reality is a species-specific agreement based on what they perceive. or do you feel it is universal.

Objective reality is objective reality. It is not necessarily dependant on what you perceive. As I said, you could be locked away in a mental house perceiving yourself to be typing messages on a message board. Your subjective interpretation of your reality has no effect on objective existence. Understand now?

If you consider 1+1=2 to be Objective, then how do you explain the non-intrinsic nature of each of the symbols, that their meaning is only relational?

Once again, the symbols 1, +, = and 2 are representations (or concepts if you will) of objective reality. The symbols by themselves have no meaning unless we apply them to known properties of the world. Stop trying to sound intelligent - it's not working.

 

[uruk]

Sure. I believe all of the things that you believe, except I do not make the same unfounded assumption regarding “the Matter” that you make. As I told Upchurch, I’d say all that you actually perceive is information, but you seem to want to claim (or pretend) that this information is more than just information.

I never claimed that the "information" is more than than just information. That's just your usual method of "putting word is someones mouth". Please try not resort to tactics of falsehood.

Ok then a return in kind is in order.

You make the unfounded assumption that the information is more important than matter. The "information" as you call it is just part of total picture of what is going on. You forget about the stimulus that generates the information or how that information is stored.
There is a tremendous amount of testable,verifiable research done on the brain which explains the processes that information is gathered processed and stored. We have mapped out the different area of the brain which are responsible for processing each sensory input.
We,ve also mapped out the area of the brain which is responsoble for our higher thinking or "Consciousness" if you will.
It's the frontal lobe. A lobotomy (which is a removal of the frontal lobe) destroys the consciousness or mind. Medical science has captured snapshots using PET scans of the brain processing information. there are different patterns of electrical activity and blood flow patterns when a person is speaking, hearing, seeing, thinking.

Explain to me why the "mind" is so intrinsically tied to the brain? why not the liver? And where is our mind before we are born? Why do we have to go through birth and development? And what about the mentally ill and retarded. What happened to their "mind"?
medical science has an explination for their affliction. A physical
abnormality with the brain. Schizophrenia can be treated with chemicals. You claim that mind creates matter. well tell me how can matter affect the mind so radically. If you believe the brain is unimportant to the mind, Why does dammage to the matter (brain) affects the mind so severly? Why does a lobotomy destroy that mind? What about narcotics, chemicals which affect the brain (matter) If the mind is not so intrinsically associated with the brain (matter) why do drugs and dammage affect the perception and mind so profoundly?

You want to claim that it has a life of it’s own independent of consciousness. You have presented no evidence for this belief, and you seem to want to ignore all the evidence that directly contradicts you on this point.

It is not "alive" but it is independant of consciousness. As for my proof see above and below. What is the evidence that directly contradicts me? You say there is evidence but you don't say what it is. Well? What is it then?

What is your justification/logic/reason/or empirical evidence for believing that “matter” exist independently of perception?

My evidence is emense age of the universe, archaeological evidence, medical proof, physics, astronomy, centuries of collected observation, and experimentation by people much smarter than I am.
You claim to believe in the laws of physics. The laws of physics say: light cannot travel faster than 186,000 miles per second.
The stars and galaxies are billions of miles away. the light you see
in the sky at night took billions of years to reach your mind.
Are you claimimg to be billions of years old?
How do we know the light is old and from far away? Parallax and Spectral shift. testable, repeatable, verifiable and independent of who ever knows about it.


[

1) A single entity “appeared” (call her TLOP) instead of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and conceived of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and now you are just receiving information from that entity (you’re a figment of his/her/its imagination).

But you make and unfounded assumption that TLOP is conscious
What is your evidence and proof that TLOP is "alive" and makes
decisions or has a "mind". We are "conscious" but why is TLOP conscious? How is gravity, The weak nuclear, and the strong nuclear force and electromagnetisn conscious?

Hello, gravity, how are you doing? Great, how are the kids? What? The weak nuclear and the strong nuclear force hate each other? how terrible. Maybe, electromagnitizm can get them back together. By the way when are you all getting together again? Oh, That long.

All you did is tell me about what you believe in a very obtuse and evasive manner. you still have not shown me any proof or evidence. Obfuscation, evasion, Typical of your method of debate.

I have givin you proof of why I believe what I believe or where to find it. For once in your life, show us your definitive, coherent, testable, verifiable proof with out resorting to insults, obfuscation,
evasion or redirection. And while your at it, please answer my questions posed to you concerning the brain.

 

[uruk]

Internal senses, then, would be those "inputs" we get that are not originated by what we imagine to be our external senses. Memories would be a prime example. We can still see what our friends looked like when they were younger. Our smell food that our moms were cooking. Those inputs which don't originate from the external world.

I don't know if I understood you correctly, so forgive me if I missed the point. But. The problem with that assesment is that memeories are created by external stimulus. The process by which the brain stores memory is some whatl understood (it involves the hypocampus along with the requsite neuro transmitters). Remembering is the process of accesseing those memories or patterns. I guess what could be considered an input that does not originate from the external world would be the objective assessments of those memories. (i.e. Mom's cooking smelled GOOD, or that was a HAPPY experiance)

In the case of imagination or creativity. Our imagination is limited to reorganization or juxtaposition of what has already been experiance. We cannot imagine or create a thing or experiance unless we can relate or compare it to what we have already experianced. If we have never tasted a olive, we can only imagine
what it would taste like as compared to another taste, i.e. salty, bitter, oily. It isn't untill we actualy taste it can we have that memory to accesess. ( note to Franko: That doesn't mean that the olive doesn't exist!It mearly means that we haven't experianced it yet)

 

[Ratman_tf]

Because an Input is the receipt of information. If you receive information – if you perceive it – then you have received INPUT.

What if the receipt, perception and processing of INPUT is an illusion? Not the data itself, but the process.

I think Upchurch was trying to ask why to trust the internal over the external. Someone can say "I think, therefore I am!" But what if that thought isn't a sign of conciousness, but a byproduct of some unpercieved process that has nothing to do with conciousness or awareness?

Why trust the internal over the external?

 

[Yahweh]

--------------------------------------------------
About a billion years ago, give or take a few, there was no life on Earth. Yet it [the Earth] must have existed, otherwise life would not have appeared. So, without anybody/anything percieving it, Earth existed. -And, I consider Earth to fit the label "matter".
--------------------------------------------------

Or equally probable:

1) A single entity “appeared” (call her TLOP) instead of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and conceived of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and now you are just receiving information from that entity (you’re a figment of his/her/its imagination).

The Laws of Physics is not an entity.

Also, that situation is not scientifically sound (its barely Philosophically sound), it's probability of occurring is 0.0%.

2) The Earth doesn’t exist, and life never “appeared” on it. You “appeared” all by yourself, and now you are just imagining the rest.

What evidence exist that makes your explanation more likely than either of these two?

The second scenario isnt scientifically sound either.

What evidence exists that makes the reference explanation more likely than the other two: The first scenario is scientifically sound, the other 2 scenarios are neither scientifically nor Philosophically sound (Note: Keep your Philosophical and semantical questions out of science).

 

[Yahweh]

You got some good comic timing going here, Upchurch and Yahweh. You should take the act on the road. I'd say the quality of these threads has improved since the last time this game was played.