Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....

[David Mo]

If anyone here says that solipsism is not claiming an “uncaused first cause” (i.e. in a way similar to theists who claim God is an uncaused first cause) then they have to explain what caused the thing that they call “consciousness” … where did any “consciousness” or “thoughts” come from” … what produces any such “thoughts”?

Science has a very clear answer to that of course. Consciousness is an effect produced by the brain and the sensory system. (...)

So what then is the solipsist philosophers explanation for the cause of what we call “consciousness”? Since they claim the brain does not exist as a cause (because that would be/require external reality), where do they claim consciousness comes from? Or are they leaving it unexplained as an “uncaused first cause”?

You have a double confusion here: that someone tells you what solipsism is and that someone has to justify what solipsism says.

Solipsism affirms that only the thinking consciousness (the Ego) and the ideas that form it exist. Everything you call "science","scientists","experiments", etc. solipsism affirm that are ideas of the mind. Some will be of one way and others of another, some will be organized in one way and others of another, some may be modified at will and others not. Of course, solipsism affirms that only one mind exists: the Ego that is thinking. If someone or something exist out of the Ego they are unknowable.

In the debate with a solipsist is useless to argue something based on objects and events from the outside world. The solipsist will say that you must first demonstrate that the world exists and that this world is the cause of the ideas of "science", "experience", etc. The theory that gives more explanations is not better, but the one that gives more solid explanations. And reason forces us to recognize that there are things we cannot know. If you are accustomed to arguing with believers you should know this.

This is where the difficulty lies. We cannot argue anything based on experience - science, in particular – to refute solipsism for the solipsist will say that all he knows about this are ideas in his mind. Planets, experiments, laboratories, photons... all we have are mere ideas. Then, the opponent of solipsism must find an argument that refutes solipsism only on the basis of ideas and reason. This is not easy.

 

[David Mo]

On my end, things are very simple. I said that any teenager can come to solipsism as a conclusion. It's an easy thing to do once you have the basics down, which you'll get early on in college or even in late high school.

Thank you for the explanation. I undernstand now.

My experience says the opposite: students cannot understand solipsism because it implies to think outside of usual intuitions, conventions and beliefs and solipsism exige a big effort of abstraction. It is the same thing with contemporary foundations of theorical physics or astronomy. They say that all this are insanities and that philosophers and physicists are crazy.There are few people as attached to the commonplaces as teenagers. Too much youtubes, smartphones, Ipads and so on, I think. They think to be very original and in reality are monotonously repetitive and mind limited. Of course I am generalizing.

 

[Belz...]

Thank you for the explanation. I undernstand now.

My experience says the opposite: students cannot understand solipsism because it implies to think outside of usual intuitions, conventions and beliefs and solipsism exige a big effort of abstraction. It is the same thing with contemporary foundations of theorical physics or astronomy. They say that all this are insanities and that philosophers and physicists are crazy.There are few people as attached to the commonplaces as teenagers. Too much youtubes, smartphones, Ipads and so on, I think. They think to be very original and in reality are monotonously repetitive and mind limited. Of course I am generalizing.

Well, maybe you don't _quite_ understand my point, so I'll try another clarification.

It's one thing to understand, say, relativity, but it doesn't mean you can do the equations or that you really grasp its details. Like me, I understand the basics. So a student can indeed understand solipsism and "adopt" it, even without understand the more complex implications or details.

 

[baron]

There's no point in debating with a solipsist, you might as well talk to yourself.

 

[David Mo]

I am arguing with a solipsist I found myself in front of the computer.

I: But one thing is the computer and another is my mind!
SOLIPSIST: How do you know?
I: because I'm looking at it.
SOL: That's an idea in your mind.
I: But I'm touching it!
SUN: Another idea.
I: But I see my hand that is different!
SUN: Another idea.
I: But I'm sure the computer is out there!!
SOL: That's a belief. Prove it.
ME: Damn computer! You don't exist, solipsist! You are a nightmare!!
SOL: You're beginning to agree with me.

 

[David Mo]

Well, maybe you don't _quite_ understand my point, so I'll try another clarification.

It's one thing to understand, say, relativity, but it doesn't mean you can do the equations or that you really grasp its details. Like me, I understand the basics. So a student can indeed understand solipsism and "adopt" it, even without understand the more complex implications or details.

Just what he won't do is adopt him. His friends would say he's crazy.

 

[Belz...]

Not if he convinces them that it's totally deep, man. Just to be different and annoy the adults or regular, adjusted folks.

 

[theprestige]

Several people have brought up the fact that we act as if we live in a materialistic world as evidence that we live in a materialistic world (i.e., things are what they seem).

Not quite. When we assume that things are as they seem, we can make useful predictions about things. This useful predictability is evidence that things are as they seem.

What you're asking is for us to seriously consider the possibility that things aren't as they seem, in some undetectable way that doesn't admit any kind of useful prediction. The limitation you've discovered in science is that science only concerns itself with things that admit useful prediction. You try to portray science's disregard for useless speculation as a failure for science. But really, it's a success for science and a failure for useless speculation.

 

[acbytesla]

Not quite. When we assume that things are as they seem, we can make useful predictions about things. This useful predictability is evidence that things are as they seem.

What you're asking is for us to seriously consider the possibility that things aren't as they seem, in some undetectable way that doesn't admit any kind of useful prediction. The limitation you've discovered in science is that science only concerns itself with things that admit useful prediction. You try to portray science's disregard for useless speculation as a failure for science. But really, it's a success for science and a failure for useless speculation.

Amen!!

 

[Fudbucker]

Not quite. When we assume that things are as they seem, we can make useful predictions about things. This useful predictability is evidence that things are as they seem.

What you're asking is for us to seriously consider the possibility that things aren't as they seem, in some undetectable way that doesn't admit any kind of useful prediction. The limitation you've discovered in science is that science only concerns itself with things that admit useful prediction. You try to portray science's disregard for useless speculation as a failure for science. But really, it's a success for science and a failure for useless speculation.

There's no reason to suppose predictions would be any less accurate in a simulation, or a dream. Science does not presuppose materialism.

 

[Steve]

There's no reason to suppose predictions would be any less accurate in a simulation, or a dream. Science does not presuppose materialism.

There's no reason to suppose predictions would be any less accurate exist in a simulation, or a dream.

 

[Fudbucker]

There's no reason to suppose predictions would be any less accurate exist in a simulation, or a dream.

Sure there is. Do your cognitive powers disappear when you dream?

 

[acbytesla]

Sure there is. Do your cognitive powers disappear when you dream?

Of course they do. Are you cognizant of anything while you dream? You don't even know you are dreaming while you're dreaming. You could very well be having a dream that you are having a dream while in fact, you were awake the entire time.

 

[The Norseman]

There's no reason to suppose predictions would be any less accurate in a simulation, or a dream. Science does not presuppose materialism.

Have you actually had a dream?

 

[LarryS]

Of course they do. Are you cognizant of anything while you dream? You don't even know you are dreaming while you're dreaming. You could very well be having a dream that you are having a dream while in fact, you were awake the entire time.

Correct, and what you are experiencing right now (while presumably awake) you could also experience while dreaming, indicating that experience both while awake and while dreaming is dictated by the mind by rules ans laws of the mind.

 

[theprestige]

There's no reason to suppose predictions would be any less accurate in a simulation, or a dream. Science does not presuppose materialism.

There's also no reason to assume a simulation, or a dream, when making predictions. That's the point: assuming simulation or dream doesn't add any level of accuracy to simply testing things as if they are what they seem.

 

[LarryS]

Not quite. When we assume that things are as they seem, we can make useful predictions about things. This useful predictability is evidence that things are as they seem.

What you're asking is for us to seriously consider the possibility that things aren't as they seem, in some undetectable way that doesn't admit any kind of useful prediction. The limitation you've discovered in science is that science only concerns itself with things that admit useful prediction. You try to portray science's disregard for useless speculation as a failure for science. But really, it's a success for science and a failure for useless speculation.

Not necessarily, things only seem physical, or we understand things to be physical because we've been conditioned to think there must be an independent physical world. The regularity and predictability we observe could stem from the commonness in our human minds, just as we notice regularity and predictability in our own perceptions, or from thought to thought. Either way science works.

 

[acbytesla]

Correct, and what you are experiencing right now (while presumably awake) you could also experience while dreaming, indicating that experience both while awake and while dreaming is dictated by the mind by rules ans laws of the mind.

I grant that we can never know with 100 percent certainty anything. We could be nothing more than bits and bytes in a computer simulation. That we could be in the middle of a long dream that we were having when we were two. My answer is simply 'so what?' I see no choice but interacting with the world that confronts me. I'm going to relegate any other possibility to be total nonsense until it can ever be proven to my senses.

 

[Fudbucker]

Of course they do. Are you cognizant of anything while you dream? You don't even know you are dreaming while you're dreaming. You could very well be having a dream that you are having a dream while in fact, you were awake the entire time.

Why are so many skeptics here so ignorant of basic facts?

Lucid dreaming.

I average a couple of these every year.

 

[Fudbucker]

There's also no reason to assume a simulation, or a dream, when making predictions. That's the point: assuming simulation or dream doesn't add any level of accuracy to simply testing things as if they are what they seem.

You don't need to assume anything (including materialism), which has been Larry's point for about a dozen pages now.