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

[acbytesla]

That is absolutely false. There is overwhelming evidence that it exists. That it doesn't represent 100% certainty is irrelevant to that claim.

Bull feces. There is none. No one has EVER presented credible evidence of a mind outside a brain or perhaps a computer.

Feel free to present it. I know of none. Only wild ass assertions.

 

[Myriad]

So to repeat (otherwise I doubt that you will understand the crucial point) - we certainly can "find" the evidence of things that, as far as anyone can honestly tell, do lay outside of our mental "awareness" - everything ever experienced by anything (living or non-living) is crammed full of that evidence, and with afaik no evidence at all to the contrary (do you want to claim that you have genuine evidence of non-reality? yes? OK, what is that evidence then??) ... but what is not possible, and not possible for anything at all, is to "find prove anything that lies outside of awareness".

It's not the distinction between evidence-of and absolute-proof-of that Larry is tripping over. It's the strange notion that nothing we experience is, or can be, evidence of anything outside of our experience. It's kind of like claiming there's no evidence for space beyond our solar system, because we only gather evidence of such from within our solar system. (Radiation coming from other stars doesn't count because we only detect it once it's arrived here.) Or that there's no evidence of the existence of the past, because any and all evidence of it that we have can only (by the definition of "have") exist in the present. Or that books can only contain evidence of books.

By that standard, which amounts to denying all meaning to all experiences, nothing is evidence of anything except itself. A thousand witnesses seeing a plane crash, and a crater full of smoking airplane debris on the ground, is only evidence that a thousand witnesses saw a plane crash and that there's a crater full of smoking airplane debris on the ground. It's not evidence that a plane crashed, or that the plane (or planes in general) existed at all.

It's not just solipsism after all. It's inconsistent nihilism defending solipsism.

 

[Myriad]

Bull feces. There is none. No one has EVER presented credible evidence of a mind outside a brain or perhaps a computer.

Feel free to present it. I know of none. Only wild ass assertions.

Um, the "it" in Belz...'s post isn't referring to any mind. In the phrase "mind independent reality," the noun is the third word not the first.

 

[LarryS]

That is absolutely false. There is overwhelming evidence that it exists. That it doesn't represent 100% certainty is irrelevant to that claim.

it's an overwhelming interpretation of the evidence, but there is no evidence that it (an independent physical reality) exists.

 

[acbytesla]

Um, the "it" in Belz...'s post isn't referring to any mind. In the phrase "mind independent reality," the noun is the third word not the first.

Fair enough. My misunderstanding.

 

[LarryS]

It's not the distinction between evidence-of and absolute-proof-of that Larry is tripping over. It's the strange notion that nothing we experience is, or can be, evidence of anything outside of our experience. It's kind of like claiming there's no evidence for space beyond our solar system, because we only gather evidence of such from within our solar system. (Radiation coming from other stars doesn't count because we only detect it once it's arrived here.) Or that there's no evidence of the existence of the past, because any and all evidence of it that we have can only (by the definition of "have") exist in the present. Or that books can only contain evidence of books.

By that standard, which amounts to denying all meaning to all experiences, nothing is evidence of anything except itself. A thousand witnesses seeing a plane crash, and a crater full of smoking airplane debris on the ground, is only evidence that a thousand witnesses saw a plane crash and that there's a crater full of smoking airplane debris on the ground. It's not evidence that a plane crashed, or that the plane (or planes in general) existed at all.

It's not just solipsism after all. It's inconsistent nihilism defending solipsism.

except that there is no claim more nihilistic than the claim that reality is independent and physical, that matter is the only stuff that's real, and everything about being a human being is a running calculation occurring within the skull.
nor am I defending solipsism, that only my finite mind exists

 

[BadBoy]

except that there is no claim more nihilistic than the claim that reality is independent and physical, that matter is the only stuff that's real, and everything about being a human being is a running calculation occurring within the skull.
nor am I defending solipsism, that only my finite mind exists

Totally disagree. Morality only exists because of conscious life. I am an atheist but even if there were a god, morality is still an empty concept if he/she/it didn't create conscious beings. I would argue that morality is less significant if only the self exists since and for morality to mean anything you have to have > 1 consciousnesses in the first place.

In fact I would so go far to say that we can only find meaning to our existence because we live in a physical reality inhabited by other people. If metaphysical solipsism is true and I am also aware that it is true (I have determined that a physical reality does not exist) then objective morality and a meaning to my existence disappears IMO. If solipsism is true but I am unaware that it is, then I will continue as if I live in a physical universe with other minds.

Lastly, if we speculate that solipsism is true and that we cannot be sure that our physical reality really exists then o.k. What next.... Next would almost always be a small pause and then a continuation of science and life as we know it. Seems to me a completely pointless exercise.

 

[acbytesla]

Totally disagree. Morality only exists because of conscious life. I am an atheist but even if there were a god, morality is still an empty concept if he/she/it didn't create conscious beings. I would argue that morality is less significant if only the self exists since and for morality to mean anything you have to have > 1 consciousnesses in the first place.

In fact I would so go far to say that we can only find meaning to our existence because we live in a physical reality inhabited by other people. If metaphysical solipsism is true and I am also aware that it is true (I have determined that a physical reality does not exist) then objective morality and a meaning to my existence disappears IMO. If solipsism is true but I am unaware that it is, then I will continue as if I live in a physical universe with other minds.

Lastly, if we speculate that solipsism is true and that we cannot be sure that our physical reality really exists then o.k. What next.... Next would almost always be a small pause and then a continuation of science and life as we know it. Seems to me a completely pointless exercise.

I agree with most of this. But I definitely believe there is such a thing as morality. But I don't believe it comes from a god, but from ourselves and our culture. I like the definition that it is well being of ourselves and others.

 

[BadBoy]

I agree with most of this. But I definitely believe there is such a thing as morality. But I don't believe it comes from a god, but from ourselves and our culture. I like the definition that it is well being of ourselves and others.

Yep, I'm pretty convinced on morality in the same way and as described by Harris and Dillahunty. In fact I have never understood the argument that objective morality can't exist without a god because if that were the case then where are they? (these objective morals), how do we know what they are? Saying we feel it in our balls because of god, or going to the bible doesn't cut the mustard with me. And Dr W.L. Craig's argument along the same lines makes even less sense too.

 

[acbytesla]

Yep, I'm pretty convinced on morality in the same way and as described by Harris and Dillahunty. In fact I have never understood the argument that objective morality can't exist without a god because if that were the case then where are they? (these objective morals), how do we know what they are? Saying we feel it in our balls because of god, or going to the bible doesn't cut the mustard with me. And Dr W.L. Craig's argument along the same lines makes even less sense too.

I agree 100 percent on this. I think it's ridiculous for anyone who believes in the Abrahamic God to say that atheists are immoral given the immorality of Yahweh as well as the total disconnect between religiosity and well being.

 

[Myriad]

except that there is no claim more nihilistic than the claim that reality is independent and physical, that matter is the only stuff that's real, and everything about being a human being is a running calculation occurring within the skull.

That's not what nihilism is. Nihilism is the denial of existence and/or meaning to reality, which is precisely what you've been attempting to do.

You do not directly experience the past or the future in that pure being-aware state. Did the past really happen? Will a future happen? If you answer yes, you're conjecturing the existence of something that by your own arguments you cannot have any evidence for. If you answer no you're doing a good job of portraying Nihilist McNihilist of Clan McNihilist.

I have not claimed nor implied that everything about being a human being is a running calculation occurring within the skull. That's a straw man you've concocted by somehow combining the conventional claim that brains are real with your own bizarre claim that the rest of the world isn't. Everything that occurs within the skull is influenced moment by moment by information from your surroundings (environment; community), and everything that occurs within the skull contributes to affecting those surroundings through ones actions. This language you're reading and writing for example. You didn't invent it inside your head, and neither did anyone else.

nor am I defending solipsism, that only my finite mind exists

Please show that. What else besides your mind do you claim exists, and how do you claim to know?

 

[surreptitious57]

I definitely believe there is such a thing as morality. But I dont believe it comes from a god but from ourselves and our culture

Morality is rooted in evolutionary psychology not in religion which at best merely reinforces it but nothing else
Also it is not objective but subjective or inter subjective. It cannot be objective because it is rooted in emotion

 

[surreptitious57]

there is no claim more nihilistic than the claim that reality is independent and physical that matter is the only
stuff that is real and everything about being a human being is a running calculation occurring within the skull

None of this has anything to do with nihilism which is the philosophical belief that there is no meaning to existence

 

[David Mo]

Incidentally, apart from the fact that we are still waiting for any philosophy supporters here to provide an explanation of how a thinking mind can exist without the reality of a brain, there is another reason why the solipsist belief is self-defeating and actually a contradiction in it's own terms -

- this is something I have alluded to here several times before, but to spell it out more clearly ...

… if no reality exists outside of a single solipsist mind, then there is no way for that solipsist to ever communicate any notion of solipsism to anyone else. I.e., the only way for any claim of solipsism to be known is if reality does exist. Put that another way – if solipsism has ever been mentioned by anyone ever at all, then it immediately shows that reality must exist and that the solipsism claim was wrong.

The only objection I can see to that above statement is for philosophy to claim that everything is taking place only within one single solipsist mind. I.e., so that when that one mind argues that reality does not exist, that same mind is simultaneously disagreeing with itself to claim that reality does exist … all these posts here and all their arguments would need to be taking place inside just one single solipsist mind …

… that solipsist mind cannot cannot make it's own mind up! – it's claiming two opposing things at once … simultaneously claiming to itself that reality does exist and also that it does not exist. And all the while, it cannot communicate a single word of any such notion of solipsism to anyone else without proving itself wrong and admitting the need for an external reality.

Do not get stubborn. The answer was already given in the commentary #941 the 28th January 2018, 04:28 PM

In the debate with a solipsist it 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.

You are making the same play than the metaphysician who asks: Why does the universe exist and not rather nothing?
These kinds of questions set a trap. By posing insoluble questions the metaphysician opens the door for solutions without reason. God's existence would explain the existence of the universe, which the materialist cannot explain. And the existence of matter would explain the existence of consciousness that the solipsist cannot explain. Obviously this is a Sadducee trap. Before giving an explanation based on anything, it must be shown that this thing exists. The metaphysician must demonstrate that God exists and you have to demonstrate that reality outside the mind exists. That is what the solipsist is waiting for. Meanwhile the existence of mind has not any explanation. It exists.

NOTE that by this argument the subjective idealist —solipsist included— claims that any kind of realists are simple metaphysicians. Like you.

Also note that the statement of the problem you are making is incorrect. Giving an explanation of why something exists is not the same as proving that something exists. The existence of at least one thinking mind needn't to be proven. You prove it to yourself every time you make one of your redundant comments. What must be shown to the solipsist is that the outside world exists. And that's what you haven't done.

 

[David Mo]

The only objection I can see to that above statement is for philosophy to claim that everything is taking place only within one single solipsist mind. I.e., so that when that one mind argues that reality does not exist, that same mind is simultaneously disagreeing with itself to claim that reality does exist … all these posts here and all their arguments would need to be taking place inside just one single solipsist mind …

… that solipsist mind cannot cannot make it's own mind up! – it's claiming two opposing things at once … simultaneously claiming to itself that reality does exist and also that it does not exist. And all the while, it cannot communicate a single word of any such notion of solipsism to anyone else without proving itself wrong and admitting the need for an external reality.

I don’t see any contradiction. The dialectical game is played in opposite parts of mind. What is the problem? Obviously the winner of the game is the solipsist part of mind. Therefore the solipsist concludes that only his mind exists.

You continue to misexpress yourself. "Philosophy" is not the one that claims that everything happens in solipsist's mind. This is solipsism. "Philosophy" has been trying for centuries to attack the stronghold of solipsism in different ways. Your "philosophyphobia" makes you use the wrong words. Watch your style and open your mind. I think it is pretty closed.

 

[David Mo]

That is absolutely false. There is overwhelming evidence that it exists. That it doesn't represent 100% certainty is irrelevant to that claim.

Everything we attribute to the world happens or has happened in a human being's mind because we do not have a direct experience of the world: we talk about our impressions, ideas and emotions and we believe that some of them have been caused by things and others have not.

Try to find something in your mind that is not an impression, an idea or an emotion. The same goes for any mathematical formula or scientific observation. These are ideas and impressions, and then beliefs.

And all this is independent whether we consider the mind to be a brain product or not.

 

[IanS]

No, I mean the word 'find', as in, we can not find this independent physical reality. For example, when you pick up, feel and taste a cup of coffee, that experience lies within consciousness, that experience occurs within consciousness. If we were honest with our language all we can say is: Our experience of a thing is the experience of it. We've been conditioned to believe there is an independent physical reality, but we've never found it.
Secondly, I've never claimed that experience is not real or that there is no reality.
I have not made any clear claim as to what is the nature of reality - if I were to submit a guess or hunch I would suggest that (some form of) idealism is more accurate or complete than materialism, but reality is likely neither.

No! You are again just playing around with the meaning of different words. You are constantly changing the words in an attempt to hide the fact that you are really demanding the impossibility of science, or anything else, providing an actually proof. And you are also demanding that whatever detection system humans use, or that any other lifeforms might use, you want rule that detection system inadmissible because you say it just "might" be the case that the detection system itself is producing the only actuality, i.e. a false illusion just created by the detection system itself.

In the above you say "We've been conditioned to believe there is an independent physical reality, but we've never found it." Well what do you mean by "found"? ... you are again using the word "found" to demand an actual "proof". What you should have said is "we have never found evidence of a external reality"; but that would not be true ... we certainly have detected evidence of an external reality ... in fact all known evidence is consistent with external reality ... and there is no known evidence to show that the external reality does not exist.

In fact as I just pointed out to you - if as you are claiming, there is no external reality, then you cannot be writing about anything at all here ... you cannot communicate any of your thoughts about anything to anyone ever ... everything has to be occurring only as an unreal illusion in your mind and with no other minds or anything else existing ... and you are simultaneously claiming reality is true whilst at the same moment also claiming it's not true ... you would be contradicting yourself in your own thoughts from moment to moment!

As soon as you (anyone) claims solipsism, you instantly prove yourself wrong! Because that claim can only be known if reality does exist!

 

[IanS]

it's an overwhelming interpretation of the evidence, but there is no evidence that it (an independent physical reality) exists.

All the evidence is consistent with reality existing.

If it does not exist, then how are you able to say anything about it?

If there is no external reality, then please explain how you are able to make posts about it here.

Seriously - that's the bottom line "crux" of this argument - if you claim no external reality then you must explain how it is possible for you to have written any of your posts here ... you have to give a credible explanation for how that is possible ...

... if only your own mind exists, then you have to explain how you can ever communicate any idea of non-reality to anyone or anything at all .... well, so what is your explanation?

My explanation, and the explanation of all science (and in fact, by way of all of their actions, it's also the explanation from all living and all non-living things in the entire universe, ever!) is that the perceived reality does indeed exist, and it exists more-or-less precisely as we detect it ...

... it's not a "proof" (as in "certainty"), but the evidence is completely consistent with reality ...

... and that evidence (all evidence) is completely inconsistent with, and in fact completely incompatible with all claims of solipsist-type non-reality, because if such no-reality were true then you could never say that and any such suggestion would remain entirely unknown, non-existent. As soon as the claim of non-reality is made and known to anyone, then the claim is thereby proved untrue by it's own communication!

 

[David Mo]

If it does not exist, then how are you able to say anything about it?

If there is no external reality, then please explain how you are able to make posts about it here.

If God doesn't exist, then how are you able to say anything about him?

If there is no god, then please explain how you are able to make posts about him here.

... if only your own mind exists, then you have to explain how you can ever communicate any idea of non-reality to anyone or anything at all .... well, so what is your explanation?

If only my mind exists there is no communication with anybody because nobody except me exists.


I am beginning to believe that you have a problem: you are unable to put yourself in the place of the solipsist, to think as he thinks.

 

[Darat]

If God doesn't exist, then how are you able to say anything about him?

If there is no god, then please explain how you are able to make posts about him here.

That's just playing with weaknesses in how language is constructed, in other words it's merely a play on words akin to "The sun never rises yet I can admire a sunrise".

It's as profound and as meaningful to this discussion as my big toe.