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

[Myriad]

I agree. This is my point from the beginning. But note that “unfalsifiable” has sense only in the context of empiricism. The solipsist claims for an evidence similar to “I exist”.

Okay. But it's important not to confuse "no certain proof" with "no evidence," even when dealing with unfalsifiable propositions. Not seeing a ninja in the room with me is evidence that there is no ninja here. Not seeing one after a thorough search is stronger evidence. That's true even if it "could be" that the ninja has amazing agility and jumps behind me each time I turn to look somewhere, and moves very silently so I never hear the jumping, and can cling to the ceiling if I back up against the wall, and then drop unseen behind the furniture if I look up at the ceiling, and so forth. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence; it's just not proof.

Seeing an elephant is evidence of an elephant. Sure, it could turn out to be a hallucination of an elephant or a picture of an elephant or a dream of an elephant or a chance elephant-shaped juxtaposition of rocks. But if others see an elephant in the same place, and it's three-dimensional and moving and palpable and smells like an elephant, and it doesn't go away if I think about something else, and it continues to behave like an elephant over time, and doesn't transform into something else or start talking or take flight, evidence that it's an elephant accumulates, even though like the absence of a ninja in the room it never reaches absolute proof if someone is determined to endlessly embellish some alternate explanation. (9/11 Truthers can give some pointers for how to do that. Ask them about those full-scale full-motion real-time broad-daylight hologram jetliners sometime.)

Since that “the solipsist” is only a logic figure it is difficult to imagine what would be his behaviour in day to day life. In theory, the solipsist would behave in the same way that “normal” people. He would establish some relations among ideas —we would say “things”— and predict his future occurrence in the same way that you an I do it. It would be surprised bay not predicted events —like you and I— and search for possible mistakes in the prediction. He would be sceptic about miracles, given that miracles don’t occur in his deductive system. That is to say it would not be distinguishable from other people except by his annoying mania of debating the existence of real world.

I suppose that his belief could arose some problems of psychological order. I imagine that truly believing that you live in a ghostly world must affect you. But if we take a look at the life of Bishop George Berkeley, who was a convinced idealist, it does not seem that he was much affected by his subjective idealism, which is the closest thing to the solipsism I know. Which suggests that he didn't quite believe it. Perhaps his idealism was a way to annoy the rationalists —and he did succeed!— or to draw attention because he was bored of ecclesiastical life— and he also succeeded. I don't know about that.

Well, the only solipsists we're likely to meet are the ones who still act as if breathing and avoiding being in the path of speeding busses is necessary. Presumably any who didn't, wouldn't stay around very long. (That is, the idea that they continue to be ideas of living people wouldn't remain very long.)

Which makes the whole thing, as I said before, a semantic issue in the end. Once they acknowledge cause and effect, whether they attribute that to particles obeying quantum equations or shadows on the cave wall cast by the mysterious actors in front of the fire or concepts in the mind of God obeying the will of God or pure will creating and acting upon mental representations or sprites in a grand computer simulation following the simulation's program or their own ideas following mental patterns of behavior that happen to be consistent for no particular reason or ducks behaving according to their mysterious fundamental duck nature, it ceases to matter. A chemist says a rock is made out of atoms; a solipsist says an idea of a rock is made out of ideas of atoms; I say a duck that seems in every perceivable way to resemble a rock is made out of many tiny ducks that seem in every particular way to resemble atoms. What accolades or attention do such word substitution exercises deserve?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

At this point I'm just about ready to conclude that you are not engaging in this discussion in good faith. You can't possibly misunderstand my point this badly by accident.

Or can you? Let's try again.

If I imagine a frog with a horse's head, no, I've never seen one of those before. But I've seen horses and frogs and I can imagine stuff that relates to my experience. But I can't imagine stuff that exists completely outside my understanding. How could I?

A better example would be trying to imagine a new color. One that doesn't exist. You can only imagine colors that are within the spectrum of colors you've experienced. But if someone said that they discovered a new planet and it has a color that has never been seen on earth, you couldn't even begin to imagine it. At best, you could imagine that you're imagining it, which isn't even close.

 

[Darat]

No again. The solipsist cannot speak of "they" as diverse realities. Only one thinking entity exists. And you cannot speak of the solpsist as a different entity of the thing that is thinking. They are one and the only thing in the solipsist universe.

I think what is causing the confusion is how in English "they" can be referring a single person or a number of people. I am never claiming there is more than the solpolist that actually exist.

The solpolist believes it exists.
The solpolist has no way to confirm this as the entity that thinks it thinks could be a creation of the solpolist
There is still only one actual counciousness I. e. the solpolist and a myriad of non-councious creations that the solpolist has created

 

[Fudbucker]

Idealism doesn't entail solipsism.

 

[David Mo]

Thank you for your answer, IanS.

But just to answer the above – how are we able to say anything about God or make posts here about God? Well the answer is obvious and it simply confirms "reality" – we can talk about concepts and beliefs such as religious beliefs, precisely because we do exist with the reality of a working brain and the ability to speak and to write … that just confirms that we are “real” … reality does exist!

I have raised the issue of God's existence in another context. I was discussing the ability of the mind to produce ideas of things that go beyond the world of perceived sensations.
However, before explaining the brain-to-think relationship you have to show that the brain exists. The thing is complicated because the solipsist does not admit that you can say that science says this or that. First you will have to show him that the impressions in his head are caused by external things. And that's what you haven't done so far. No matter how much you think you've done it,

But what I have repeatedly put to people here like Mo and Larry, is that if they are defending a solipsist idea that says reality does not exist, so that all that actually exists is “consciousness” within one single solipsist mind, then there can be no possible way for that solipsist mind/consciousness ever to communicate that idea to anyone else (because according to that solipsist idea nobody else exists … there is no reality outside of that one disembodied mind) …

… that would mean that there are actually no posts here about anything (they all occur only in that one solipsist mind). It would mean that the illusion of any posts here are all just examples of that one solipsist mind constantly disagreeing with itself! ... it's immediately contradicting itself with two opposing arguments at once; at one instant telling itself that reality does not exist but then immediately telling itself that reality does exist ... it's a position of immediate self-contradiction.

To summarise that another way (for those like Mo and Larry who clearly have zero understanding of it!) - as soon as anyone claims that reality either does not exist, or even claims that it may not exist, then by making that claim you are immediately destroying your own claim … because you cannot even articulate or communicate any such claim unless the reality does actually exist!

Your reasoning would make some sense if the solipsist claimed that his mind creates ideas consciously. But this is not what the solipsist says. He says that ideas are formed in his mind. Some through conscious chaining; others spontaneously, for reasons he cannot investigate. Thus, there is no argument against one idea opposing the other. But the result is not a contradiction, but the dialectical struggle of ideas in the solipsist's mind that leads him to accept what is more coherent according him: the real world doesn't exist. There's nothing strange about this. I can imagine one opponent telling me this or that and I answer. I see no contradiction anywhere.

And finally – I'm sorry to repeat this again to people here like Mo and Larry, because I've put it to them a dozen times already without any kind of credible reply from them, but – until they can provide a credible explanation for the following two questions, they have no case at all in defending solipsist-type claims -


Q1. How is it possible for consciousness and thoughts to be produced without the reality of a brain?


Q2. If only one solipsist mind exists, then how is it possible for that solipsist mind to communicate its beliefs to anyone else? … if all disputes occur only in that one solipsist mind, then why is that solipsist mind in constant self-contradiction by claiming two opposing things at once (claiming both that reality does not exist, and at the same time claiming it does it)?

If solipsist defenders cannot answer those two questions, then they have no case, and that is the end of any credible discussion for claims of non-reality.

As I have answered you the dozens times that you have raised this, the solipsist thinks that the question about the origin of ideas cannot be answered. Like the question "Why does the universe exist and not nothingness?" They are metaphysical questions without sense.
To your second question: The solipsist believes that there can be no communication among people because the only person that exists is the only Ego. You have to demonstrate first that people exist and then that communication between them is possible.

I think your problem is that you are trying to attack the solipsist from the outside and that has little effect because he is well entrenched. You should enter in his fortress and attack it from within, which is not easy. Certainly.

 

[David Mo]

Well, the only solipsists we're likely to meet are the ones who still act as if breathing and avoiding being in the path of speeding busses is necessary. Presumably any who didn't, wouldn't stay around very long. (That is, the idea that they continue to be ideas of living people wouldn't remain very long.)

Which makes the whole thing, as I said before, a semantic issue in the end. Once they acknowledge cause and effect, whether they attribute that to particles obeying quantum equations or shadows on the cave wall cast by the mysterious actors in front of the fire or concepts in the mind of God obeying the will of God or pure will creating and acting upon mental representations or sprites in a grand computer simulation following the simulation's program or their own ideas following mental patterns of behavior that happen to be consistent for no particular reason or ducks behaving according to their mysterious fundamental duck nature, it ceases to matter. A chemist says a rock is made out of atoms; a solipsist says an idea of a rock is made out of ideas of atoms; I say a duck that seems in every perceivable way to resemble a rock is made out of many tiny ducks that seem in every particular way to resemble atoms. What accolades or attention do such word substitution exercises deserve?

I believe that we have understood each other fundamentally. Just one thing: I don't think the problem is semantic. At least not what I understand by semantics. Semantics deal with the meaning of words. The difference between the solipsist and us is that he believes that the word "cow" refers to an idea and we think it refers to one thing. It is a difference of reference, not of meaning.

Why are we taking care of this subject?
First, because we like to exercise our intelligence by the mere fact of exercising it. If not, you wouldn't be writing comment after comment, even though the issue seems useless to you.
Second, because solipsism is a throwing weapon. If you and I do not like solipsism —as I believe it to be the case — and you accuse my beliefs of being solipsism or implicating solipsism this will annoy me and I will have to prove that this is not the case. But in order to do this, the concept of solipsism and its implications must be well understood.
And last but not least because the controversy over solipsism raises certain questions about how our knowledge works that may be useful in other contexts. Of course, if you have a fixed or unmovable idea about the relationship between ideas and things, solipsism will seem crazy to you. Well, there's very little you can do against closed thinking.

The solpolist believes it exists.
The solpolist has no way to confirm this as the entity that thinks it thinks could be a creation of the solpolist
There is still only one actual counciousness I. e. the solpolist and a myriad of non-councious creations that the solpolist has created

The solipsist only affirms what is obvious: someone or something (“Ego”) is thinking. If you want add “...thinking in something that exists out of his conscience” you ought to demonstrate that this “something” exists, because it is not obvious.

 

[David Mo]

Idealism doesn't entail solipsism.

But they are very near. I speak of Berkeley's subjective idealism. I think that logical consequence of Berkeley's theory is solipsism. Something like Leibniz's monadology. They escape from solipsism with God's aid that I think this is not a great aid at all.

 

[IanS]

Well, here is the question that I just posed (for about the 12th time!), and below that is the reply which David Mo just offered as an “answer” -

Q1. How is it possible for consciousness and thoughts to be produced without the reality of a brain?


Q2. If only one solipsist mind exists, then how is it possible for that solipsist mind to communicate its beliefs to anyone else? … if all disputes occur only in that one solipsist mind, then why is that solipsist mind in constant self-contradiction by claiming two opposing things at once (claiming both that reality does not exist, and at the same time claiming it does it)?

If solipsist defenders cannot answer those two questions, then they have no case, and that is the end of any credible discussion for claims of non-reality.

The “answer” which David Mo just gave, was this -

As I have answered you the dozens times that you have raised this, the solipsist thinks that the question about the origin of ideas cannot be answered. Like the question "Why does the universe exist and not nothingness?" They are metaphysical questions without sense.

To your second question: The solipsist believes that there can be no communication among people because the only person that exists is the only Ego. You have to demonstrate first that people exist and then that communication between them is possible.

People here will immediately note that although he says he has answered a dozen times already, his answer is to say that he has "no answer"!! He has no explanation at all lol.

Well that's actually a very plain admission from David Mo that he has absolutely no case at all in claiming solipsist-type unreality ... he admits he can find no answer at all. So that's really the end of the discussion …


As for his reply on Q2. - what David Mo says there is 100% irrelevant, and appears to be complete faiure on his part to even understand the question!

Of course solipsism means there is only one disembodied consciousness, and no other persons to communicate with. But that's precisely the problem! – if no other persons exist, then all of the posts here are claimed to be taking place in one solipsist mind … in which case that one solipsist mind is creating all the posts here that disagree with it's own claims of solipsism! … that one solipsist mind is in constant self-contradiction and instantly claiming both things at once!

So those same two questions are still waiting for any kind credible answer from either David Mo or from Larry or from anyone else here who claims that “consciousness” could exist without the reality of a brain (or any equivalent structure). So (repeat, 14th time) -


Q1. How is it possible for consciousness and thoughts to be produced without the reality of a brain?


Q2. If only one solipsist mind exists, then how is it possible for that solipsist mind to communicate its beliefs to anyone else? … if all disputes occur only in that one solipsist mind, then why is that solipsist mind in constant self-contradiction by claiming two opposing things at once (claiming both that reality does not exist, and at the same time claiming it does it)?

 

[David Mo]

People here will immediately note that although he says he has answered a dozen times already, his answer is to say that he has "no answer"!! He has no explanation at all lol.

Well that's actually a very plain admission from David Mo that he has absolutely no case at all in claiming solipsist-type unreality ... he admits he can find no answer at all. So that's really the end of the discussion …


As for his reply on Q2. - what David Mo says there is 100% irrelevant, and appears to be complete faiure on his part to even understand the question!

Of course solipsism means there is only one disembodied consciousness, and no other persons to communicate with. But that's precisely the problem! – if no other persons exist, then all of the posts here are claimed to be taking place in one solipsist mind … in which case that one solipsist mind is creating all the posts here that disagree with it's own claims of solipsism! … that one solipsist mind is in constant self-contradiction and instantly claiming both things at once!

So those same two questions are still waiting for any kind credible answer from either David Mo or from Larry or from anyone else here who claims that “consciousness” could exist without the reality of a brain (or any equivalent structure). So (repeat, 14th time) -


Q1. How is it possible for consciousness and thoughts to be produced without the reality of a brain?


Q2. If only one solipsist mind exists, then how is it possible for that solipsist mind to communicate its beliefs to anyone else? … if all disputes occur only in that one solipsist mind, then why is that solipsist mind in constant self-contradiction by claiming two opposing things at once (claiming both that reality does not exist, and at the same time claiming it does it)?

I have already answered those questions in my previous comment. If you don't tell me why my answer seems like a no-answer to you we are in a dead end. Simply repeating them over and over again can be an unbearable rattle.

The best thing would be for you to try your own response without repeating "science proves that..." This is a path that proves nothing.

 

[Cheetah]

Thanks for your posts David Mo, I appreciate your patience and clear communication.

IanS, I think David, in his role as "solipsist", has answered your questions, you are just not quite managing to put yourself into the head of a solipsist and understand his point of view.

The problem is that the solipsist does not trust anything to be real, unless he can experience it directly. All that you experience via your senses takes place in your mind and is therefore secondhand and not real to him. All he can say for sure is that he is and thinks, there is no doubt about that, it is firsthand.
How a mind can exist without a brain therefore makes no sense, you have to prove a brain exists first and you cannot do so without using your senses, which are not to be trusted. Stalemate.

 

[theprestige]

I am claiming that the Big Bang is an expansion/explosion of appearance - and from our own experience, appearance is sufficiently real. There is neither a need nor advantage to adding being physical to an appearance.

What's the difference between "adding being physical to an appearance" and "treating the appearance of physicality as if it is what it appears to be"?

Because it seems like there's a huge advantage to treating apparently physical stuff as if it really is physical.

 

[Darat]

Thanks for your posts David Mo, I appreciate your patience and clear communication.

IanS, I think David, in his role as "solipsist", has answered your questions, you are just not quite managing to put yourself into the head of a solipsist and understand his point of view.

The problem is that the solipsist does not trust anything to be real, unless he can experience it [I]directly[/I]. All that you experience via your senses takes place in your mind and is therefore secondhand and not real to him. All he can say for sure is that he is and thinks, there is no doubt about that, it is firsthand.
How a mind can exist without a brain therefore makes no sense, you have to prove a brain exists first and you cannot do so without using your senses, which are not to be trusted. Stalemate.

The reason the solpolist was brought up in this thread was because of Larry's statement that it is the realist that has to prove that something exists. Solpolism is the logical extreme of such a position.

The issue for Larry (and the solpolist) is that they are simply assuming they experience things "directly", just as the realist assumes there is a world they are "indirectly" experiencing.

Neither stance (at the moment) can be "proven" to be 100% the truth as both rely on an assumption.

One stance however results in things that work,

 

[theprestige]

The realist doesn't have to prove that something exists. He just has to show that treating things that appear to exist as if they really do exist is useful. Which it is. The solipsist, on the other hand, has to show that treating things that appear to exist as if they are only figments is useful. Which it isn't. Check mate, solipsist.

 

[Steve]

Thanks for your posts David Mo, I appreciate your patience and clear communication.

IanS, I think David, in his role as "solipsist", has answered your questions, you are just not quite managing to put yourself into the head of a solipsist and understand his point of view.

The problem is that the solipsist does not trust anything to be real, unless he can experience it directly. All that you experience via your senses takes place in your mind and is therefore secondhand and not real to him. All he can say for sure is that he is and thinks, there is no doubt about that, it is firsthand.How a mind can exist without a brain therefore makes no sense, you have to prove a brain exists first and you cannot do so without using your senses, which are not to be trusted. Stalemate.

If there are doubts about everything else why is there no doubt about this?

 

[Dancing David]

What's the difference between "adding being physical to an appearance" and "treating the appearance of physicality as if it is what it appears to be"?

Because it seems like there's a huge advantage to treating apparently physical stuff as if it really is physical.

That is why naturalism or philosophical naturalism is the stance of most materialists

 

[caveman1917]

That is why naturalism or philosophical naturalism is the stance of most materialists

Methodological naturalism is the stance of any scientists. Many materialists, as usual, think it somehow "espouses" or "specifically supports" their ontology because, just as with science itself, they are unable to interpret it under anything other than their chosen ontological framework.

Let the SCD be the abstract sequence creation device, that which produces the sequence of symbols which constitute our observations. So for example if we constantly let go off something ("L") and it falls down ("F") then the SCD would have produced "LFLFLFLF". Science is the goal of compressing that sequence, through finding regularities in it. So science would have given us a law of gravity "L -> LF" and compressed the sequence to "LLLL".

Note that this is not a statement about the "nature" of the SCD, but a syntactic operation on the sequence it produces. A materialist will interpret the SCD as an external material universe, a solipsist as his subconscious, and a matrixist as the matrix. Science though only says "Whatever it may be, the point is that if you let go off something then it falls down."

Now, methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism isn't the assertion that the SCD should be considered "as if" materialism were true, that's just how materialists interpret it (I'm starting to think some materialists have serious ego issues, only being able to see anything else as a validation of their specific arbitrary ontological choice ). Methodological naturalism is the assertion that all the symbols produced by the SCD are there because of some, in principle knowable, rules, that the SCD operates by such rules. Or differently, it's the assertion that magic doesn't exist, symbols don't appear for no reason.

A materialist will interpret that as asserting that materialism is true and only his imagined external material universe exists, but a solipsist would just as validly interpret this as the assertion that his subconscious works solely by such rules, or a matrixist as the assertion that the matrix works by such rules.

 

[acbytesla]

Methodological naturalism is the stance of any scientists. Many materialists, as usual, think it somehow "espouses" or "specifically supports" their ontology because, just as with science itself, they are unable to interpret it under anything other than their chosen ontological framework.

Let the SCD be the abstract sequence creation device, that which produces the sequence of symbols which constitute our observations. So for example if we constantly let go off something ("L") and it falls down ("D") then the SCD would have produced "LFLFLFLF". Science is the goal of compressing that sequence, through finding regularities in it. So science would have given us a law of gravity "L -> LF" and compressed the sequence to "LLLL".

Note that this is not a statement about the "nature" of the SCD, but a syntactic operation on the sequence it produces. A materialist will interpret the SCD as an external material universe, a solipsist as his subconscious, and a matrixist as the matrix. Science though only says "Whatever it may be, the point is that if you let go off it then it falls down."

Now, methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism isn't the assertion that the SCD should be considered "as if" materialism were true, that's just how materialists interpret it (I'm starting to think some materialists have serious ego issues, only being able to see anything else as a validation of their specific arbitrary ontological choice ). Methodological naturalism is the assertion that all the symbols produced by the SCD are there because of some, in principle knowable, rules, that the SCD operates by such rules. Or differently, it's the assertion that magic doesn't exist, symbols don't appear for no reason.

A materialist will interpret that as asserting that materialism is true and only his imagined external material universe exists, but a solipsist would just as validly interpret this as the assertion that his subconscious works solely by such rules, or a matrixist as the assertion that the matrix works by such rules.

Woo Woo!

There always seems to be this nonsense that people argue about this subject. As if our minds and consciousness can exist outside the physical apparatus that supports our bodies. We may not be our bodies, but we cannot exist without it.

That we can conceive in ideas such as solipsism doesn't make them any more real than Mordor and Hogwarts.

 

[Dancing David]

Some of us think that words are labels, and that materialism means the universe behaves as if it is material. The universe cares a hole lot about that, and even less about ontology

 

[Fudbucker]

But they are very near. I speak of Berkeley's subjective idealism. I think that logical consequence of Berkeley's theory is solipsism. Something like Leibniz's monadology. They escape from solipsism with God's aid that I think this is not a great aid at all.

From what I remember, most idealistic beliefs lead to some sort of "oneness", so you could argue they are "solipsistic".

 

[Cheetah]

If there are doubts about everything else why is there no doubt about this?

Go ask a solopsist.

But seriously just read David Mo's posts, he explained it multiple times in different ways in this very thread.

I have never even read a philosophy book, just about all I know about it I read on this forum, with forays to Wikipedia for clarification.