Subjectivity and Science

[NeilC]

I'm struggling to work out how something which is thinking, even if the creation of a solipsist, can be said to not exist. Surely this the instantiation principle at work?

Are you saying that it's possible for something to hold the thoughts of another? Even then we are still talking about something.

 

[outofmymind033]

so basically you trying to find the truth to all being by sitting there and letting your thoughts wander.

Bull

Hell, if you ever discover something with your consciousness you shouldn't get the credit, your consciousness should. You didn't do any of the thinking.

Everything the world has discovered has been out of thought and science, Einstein did not have a random epiphany and just say omg, speed of light, e=mc2. He researched these things. That's why you know their names, Newton, Einstein, Galileo, etc.

The only thing meditation does is relieve muscle tension

 

[Darat]

I was specifically addressing this statement:

"Solipsism is every bit as valid a position as materialism, more so even, in a truly empirical sense....all we can be truly sure of is our thoughts themselves...."

I'm saying that there is no way that you can know for sure whether you are the solipsist or a creation of the solipsist. There is no test you can ever conceive of that can answer that question so when andyandy states that "more so ... empirical sense" it isn't the case since there is no empirical way to make that determination within solipsism. That we "think we think our thoughts" is not evidence that we do in solipsism.

 

[John Freestone]

Did you actually read and internalize any of the criticisms of your position?

I tried to express that my 'position' was agnostic, but shared some of my personal questions about that and put some of my sincerely held criticisms of science. Which criticisms of my non-position should I have 'internalized', that I'm a moron, or that I reject the idea of evidence and therefore should shut up, or that science has not found any limits to its knowledge, or that the observer is irrelevant...or all of them? And why should that be the point of my discussing things here with people, to internalize their criticisms of my views, even if I defined what they were? What is it about this scientific religion that makes its adherents so evangelical and unable to let others have different views?

I'm happy for you to believe whatever you believe. I have put criticisms of science, or of certain understandings of science that I believe are commonly held and are demonstrated here strongly, but I do not intend to keep arguing them, and I don't demand others 'internalize' them. I hoped that there might be some value in my discussing these things here, but it was a mistake.

I'll shut up. I'm shocked how defensive and dislikable I have become here at JREF. I apologise for any offence I've caused.

 

[outofmymind033]

you've caused no offence, this is a skeptics forum..... basically whatever you say, they're going to reject, lol

 

[plumjam]

I tried to express that my 'position' was agnostic, but shared some of my personal questions about that and put some of my sincerely held criticisms of science. Which criticisms of my non-position should I have 'internalized', that I'm a moron, or that I reject the idea of evidence and therefore should shut up, or that science has not found any limits to its knowledge, or that the observer is irrelevant...or all of them? And why should that be the point of my discussing things here with people, to internalize their criticisms of my views, even if I defined what they were? What is it about this scientific religion that makes its adherents so evangelical and unable to let others have different views?

I'm happy for you to believe whatever you believe. I have put criticisms of science, or of certain understandings of science that I believe are commonly held and are demonstrated here strongly, but I do not intend to keep arguing them, and I don't demand others 'internalize' them. I hoped that there might be some value in my discussing these things here, but it was a mistake.

I'll shut up. I'm shocked how defensive and dislikable I have become here at JREF. I apologise for any offence I've caused.

John, please don't shut up.
I found your prior posts in this thread very well thought out and excellently expressed. Unfortunately, the reaction you received from some of the respondents is pretty much par for the course here. It just goes to confirm your apt description of the orthodoxy here being a scientific religion.
When the foundation of their religion is brought into question some here react just as dogmatically as the religious fundamentalists they spend so much time and energy criticising.

Sometimes it's actually fun to witness

 

[Irony]

I tried to express that my 'position' was agnostic, but shared some of my personal questions about that and put some of my sincerely held criticisms of science. Which criticisms of my non-position should I have 'internalized', that I'm a moron, or that I reject the idea of evidence and therefore should shut up, or that science has not found any limits to its knowledge, or that the observer is irrelevant...or all of them? And why should that be the point of my discussing things here with people, to internalize their criticisms of my views, even if I defined what they were? What is it about this scientific religion that makes its adherents so evangelical and unable to let others have different views?

I'm happy for you to believe whatever you believe. I have put criticisms of science, or of certain understandings of science that I believe are commonly held and are demonstrated here strongly, but I do not intend to keep arguing them, and I don't demand others 'internalize' them. I hoped that there might be some value in my discussing these things here, but it was a mistake.

I'll shut up. I'm shocked how defensive and dislikable I have become here at JREF. I apologise for any offence I've caused.

The only reason you caused offense was that (intentionally or not) you lectured the people here on what their beliefs were. The use of terms like "materialist religious dogma" serves no purpose other than to insult, and the fact that you used it even after it was explained how materialists take solipsism into account hinted that you weren't actually listening. I would rather you see this as a learning experience than as a reason to leave.

 

[Matt the Poet]

I tried to express that my 'position' was agnostic, but shared some of my personal questions about that and put some of my sincerely held criticisms of science. Which criticisms of my non-position should I have 'internalized', that I'm a moron, or that I reject the idea of evidence and therefore should shut up, or that science has not found any limits to its knowledge, or that the observer is irrelevant...or all of them? And why should that be the point of my discussing things here with people, to internalize their criticisms of my views, even if I defined what they were? What is it about this scientific religion that makes its adherents so evangelical and unable to let others have different views?

I'm happy for you to believe whatever you believe. I have put criticisms of science, or of certain understandings of science that I believe are commonly held and are demonstrated here strongly, but I do not intend to keep arguing them, and I don't demand others 'internalize' them. I hoped that there might be some value in my discussing these things here, but it was a mistake.

I'll shut up. I'm shocked how defensive and dislikable I have become here at JREF. I apologise for any offence I've caused.

Regardless of how ‘sincerely held’ your beliefs may be, you’ve put them up for discussion. They are being discussed. A number of points have been raised. I’m not sure that ‘internalise’ is the right word for what it would be at the very least polite to do with them, but ‘addressing’ might be.

And you haven’t. Several posters, for example have made the point that there is no logical reason to consider consciousness, or indeed identity, a more special physical property than any other (you’re on a hiding to nothing with Quantum Physics, incidentally – as far as I understand it a half-silvered mirror could do the job of an ‘observer’ to the satisfaction of all the relevant equations), and beyond a sort of vaguely emotive special pleading you have yet to provide one.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Surely i can be more sure of my thoughts than i can be of anything that exists outside myself? For anything that i think exists outside myself requires that the stimulus is correctly received and interpreted, whereas at least with my thoughts, that external step is not required.....

Paraphrasing from "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy":

Mouse: We'll give you a new brain and program it so you act exactly as you do now. No one would know the difference.
Arthur: I'D know the difference!
Mouse: No, you wouldn't. You'd be programmed not to.

 

[fls]

I tried to express that my 'position' was agnostic, but shared some of my personal questions about that and put some of my sincerely held criticisms of science. Which criticisms of my non-position should I have 'internalized', that I'm a moron, or that I reject the idea of evidence and therefore should shut up, or that science has not found any limits to its knowledge, or that the observer is irrelevant...or all of them? And why should that be the point of my discussing things here with people, to internalize their criticisms of my views, even if I defined what they were? What is it about this scientific religion that makes its adherents so evangelical and unable to let others have different views?

If it upsets you to be asked to defend what you perceive to be a misrepresentation of your views, consider what sort of response you should expect when you set out to do the same to others.

I'm happy for you to believe whatever you believe. I have put criticisms of science, or of certain understandings of science that I believe are commonly held and are demonstrated here strongly, but I do not intend to keep arguing them, and I don't demand others 'internalize' them. I hoped that there might be some value in my discussing these things here, but it was a mistake.

I'll shut up. I'm shocked how defensive and dislikable I have become here at JREF. I apologise for any offence I've caused.

I suspect you were shocked at how quickly your insincerity was recognized (you did give us more than a few clues ). You were still given the benefit of the doubt, though. We're nice about that.

Linda

 

[andyandy]

That's only true after you've made the assumption that you are sure of your thoughts. There is just no way that you can tell if you are the solipsist or just a creation of the solipsist in solipsist metaphysics.

perhaps i can be sure of my thoughts, just not sure that i'm the one thinking them....

 

[andyandy]

I was specifically addressing this statement:

"Solipsism is every bit as valid a position as materialism, more so even, in a truly empirical sense....all we can be truly sure of is our thoughts themselves...."

I'm saying that there is no way that you can know for sure whether you are the solipsist or a creation of the solipsist. There is no test you can ever conceive of that can answer that question so when andyandy states that "more so ... empirical sense" it isn't the case since there is no empirical way to make that determination within solipsism. That we "think we think our thoughts" is not evidence that we do in solipsism.

true - i think empirical was completely the wrong word to use

it depends if solipsism requires that you know of your own existence by the existence of your thought, or the weaker knowledge that your thought exists (regardless of who really is thinking it)....i'd agree that the former position falls into the same uncertainty that besets the materialist position...though the latter weaker claim may still stand....

 

[aggle-rithm]

What is it about this scientific religion that makes its adherents so evangelical and unable to let others have different views?

Well, it's not a religion, but I suspect you know that already.

Science is aggressively defended by its adherents because it's the only method of understanding reality that consistently works, and it's often under attack by people who claim, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that it doesn't.

However -- and I say this with all due respect -- I think you know that, as well.

 

[plumjam]

Well, it's not a religion, but I suspect you know that already.

Science is aggressively defended by its adherents because it's the only method of understanding reality that consistently works, and it's often under attack by people who claim, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that it doesn't.

However -- and I say this with all due respect -- I think you know that, as well.

I'd suggest that John had something more akin to scientism, than to science, in mind when he made that comment.

 

[JoeEllison]

I tried to express that my 'position' was agnostic, but shared some of my personal questions about that and put some of my sincerely held criticisms of science. Which criticisms of my non-position should I have 'internalized', that I'm a moron, or that I reject the idea of evidence and therefore should shut up, or that science has not found any limits to its knowledge, or that the observer is irrelevant...or all of them? And why should that be the point of my discussing things here with people, to internalize their criticisms of my views, even if I defined what they were? What is it about this scientific religion that makes its adherents so evangelical and unable to let others have different views?

I'm happy for you to believe whatever you believe. I have put criticisms of science, or of certain understandings of science that I believe are commonly held and are demonstrated here strongly, but I do not intend to keep arguing them, and I don't demand others 'internalize' them. I hoped that there might be some value in my discussing these things here, but it was a mistake.

I'll shut up. I'm shocked how defensive and dislikable I have become here at JREF. I apologise for any offence I've caused.

The point isn't to shut up. The point is that you are ignoring what other people are saying, and plowing ahead in defining some of us in stark contradiction to what we're saying to you. When you're criticized, you plow forward with more of this "scientific religion" nonsense, which shows that you're determined to miss the point.

You don't have to agree with what anyone says. It is insulting as hell to ignore what people say while pretending to respond to it.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I'd suggest that John had something more akin to scientism, than to science, in mind when he made that comment.

I guess we'll never know. Apparently, he's too clever for us to understand what he's saying.

 

[joobz]

The point isn't to shut up. The point is that you are ignoring what other people are saying, and plowing ahead in defining some of us in stark contradiction to what we're saying to you. When you're criticized, you plow forward with more of this "scientific religion" nonsense, which shows that you're determined to miss the point.

You don't have to agree with what anyone says. It is insulting as hell to ignore what people say while pretending to respond to it.

Ah, but how do you know that's the point? ARe you really sure that there is a point, or a person who's making that point? What if the point is actually a slice of bread and isn't a person's idea at all. What if the slice of bread had a point and was eaten by a grapejelly without knowing reality? Can we really be certain that the reality you think is real or really imposed on the reality of other's is actual?!???

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

perhaps i can be sure of my thoughts, just not sure that i'm the one thinking them....

I think that would be accurate.

One of the things that Interesting Ian seems to get wrong is related to this point. While it is clear that our feelings are unimpeachable (that is, that we experience the feelings cannot be denied by anyone), the accuracy of those feelings is not. So, for instance, while I may feel that I am conscious, it is not necessarily the case that I am conscious. It is necessarily the case that I feel conscious, and that you cannot deny me this feeling. I could, however, be wrong in my feeling that I am conscious.

Ian incorrectly conflates the incorrigibility of feelings as feelings with the incorrigibility of feelings corresponding to other realities. Where it gets tricky is in the definition of consciousness. Some people define consciousness as these feelings, or qualia, so it is very tempting to postulate that the feelings themselves all are incorrigible. Unfortunately, they can be denied; just as Descartes postulated much earlier. We cannot be wrong about the fact that we are having the feeling, but we can be wrong about the intention of the feeling, or what the feeling is about.

 

[JoeEllison]

Ah, but how do you know that's the point? ARe you really sure that there is a point, or a person who's making that point? What if the point is actually a slice of bread and isn't a person's idea at all. What if the slice of bread had a point and was eaten by a grapejelly without knowing reality? Can we really be certain that the reality you think is real or really imposed on the reality of other's is actual?!???

I appreciate your attempt to display how utterly useless the OP's philosophy is. It is more funny to me than you meant it to be... my Psych professor read us a letter from a schizophrenic today, and the similarities are striking!

 

[joobz]

I appreciate your attempt to display how utterly useless the OP's philosophy is. It is more funny to me than you meant it to be... my Psych professor read us a letter from a schizophrenic today, and the similarities are striking!

I've been told on more than one occasion that my ability to write and say random jibberish word salad is a little TOO good.

I usually explain that I have MPD, but all my personalities have the same name and the exact same personality. The outside observer doesn't see the difference but in my head there are 100 joobzs all telling me to do the things I would do anyways.