This is what pathological skeptics believe

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yes. Basically, the "private language" is the summation of all the inwardly perceived experiences inaccessible to others. But his argument really doesn't have anything to do with solipsism, because it looks at the actual comprehensibility of the "language," whereas solipsism only need question the existence of this "language" in others at all.

Well, if the solipsist is the only being in the universe, he must have developed his language, but it turns out that he learned it from others, ergo...

 

[Garrette]

All quotations originally by Open Mind:

I have no idea who 'she' is.

A typo on my part. I meant to say “you.”

Are you telling me when csicopians claim 'cold reading' they actually mean 'hot reading' ?

I’m telling you that they mention cold reading as one technique to cheat.
Hot reading is another.

If there are specific and actual statements by “csicopians” that you wish me to analyze, then post them.

Are you going to insist upon cheaters in all fields of scientific investigation or claim it was non-siginificant?

In most fields of science (at least when dealing with experiments) fraud/cheating are uncovered/discarded through replication by others.

You do not find replication in parapsychology.

I would but I'm quickly learning you would not considered it with an open mind

You continue to find excuses not to provide evidence or support.

I trust readers of this thread will draw their own conclusions regarding whose mind is more open.

Only in your mind. Obviously they have to agree to the test conditions.

Obviously, but the test conditions must be developed in light of their claimed abilities.

If you have said this, I missed it.

It appears, instead, that you are simply backing off your original assertion once confronted with its illogic.
Nothing wrong with that; in fact, it’s commendable, if you admit it’s what you’re doing.

If someone wishes to research into that,fine. I'm more interested in testing cold reading hypothesis.

So you brought up the whole “experimenter effect” thing to no point, then.

Got it.

Please don’t bring it up again unless you’re willing to let me address it, too.

No, I'm just saying we cannot test them on their individual ideal conditions, they all need to agree to the same conditions, ones in which cold readers and psychics cannot cheat.

This is your projection on them, again, of what you think psi is.

Why must they all agree to the same conditions?

What if their claims are different?

Sheer nonsense. We have just not discussed precautions fully to stop you cheating, nor should you know about these until the days of the trials

Fair enough.

I can accept that we simply haven’t gotten to the point of discussing details yet.

And as an admitted cheater I have no problem with restricting my knowledge of precautions until the trial so long as the allegedly legitimate psychics have the same restriction.

I suspect, however, that this proviso will mean you get no volunteers from the population of allegedly legitimate psychics.

I could be wrong, though.

I have no fixed opinion on how to achieve the outcome, I only say all the psyhics should be happy with each other as a team

What possible difference could it make?

Are they being tested as a team?

I’d go in the other direction and prevent them from knowing who else was being tested, though in practice I’m not sure how to put that into effect.

Your sound bite not mine. It doesn't apply, I won't waste my time explaining your phrase to you.

Au contraire.

It describes what you’ve been saying quite nicely.

Finding reasons not to explain and not to provide evidence seems a hobby of yours.

No, most just claim they cannot necessarily summon up who the recipient wishes to speak with, they claim to contact others instead.

Ah. Got it.

But when stated in this fashion the objection becomes irrelevant.

They (the allegedly legitimate psychics/mediums) can control when they are contacted with information sufficient for validation by the sitter regardless which alleged spirit does the contacting.

It would take far too long, perhaps I should tell you where you are right?

If you wish. We can compare your list about me to my list about you.

Then, as always, I’ll trust the readers to determine which of us is presenting a supported, coherent position.

There was nothing wrong with my wording, you took the wrong meaning either deliberately or foolishly. 'Pharmaceutical effect' doesn't have any meaning set in stone. What I meant should have been obvious, since no drug can get on the market without beating a placebo, the substantial effect of the product doesn't seem much due to the active ingredients, since the placebo is nearly as effective.

Your statement had no context.

I took the reasonable interpretation of it which happened to also be the literal interpretation.

You say now that your meaning was different.

Fine, but do not blame me for your failure to communicate.

Given your revised meaning, though, we get back to my original comment: You don’t know what statistical significance is, do you?

Were you just playing dumb to save face?

I am quite capable of making dumb mistakes and quite willing to admit when I do.

I simply haven’t done so in this instance.

You seems to require a very poor standard of evidence

Do you mean about the points in question or about my opinion of your posts?

If the former, you’re demonstrably wrong; again, we can let readers decide.

If the latter, I admit my conclusions are based solely on my interaction with you here.

While perhaps not great in quantity, the evidence is admirable in its consistency.

More telepathy? I quoted a link clearly stating suicide as a possibility, but you preferred to imagine I meant it as a certain fact and now you call this evidence?

You quoted a link which neither stated nor implied what you suggested it did.

You posted other links which were even further removed from your point.

So you believe but you are wrong. To me being a sceptic means 'doubt' perhaps you assumed a certainty perhaps due to your own positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant’

As I said before, drop the “unwarranted” and I’ll cop to this crime.

However, I’ll gladly take you at your word that nothing you’ve said in this thread is anything but casual conversation, from which admission I conclude that you’ve no evidence to offer in support.

I just don't have time to unravel all your twisting,

And again, I’ll trust readers to decide which of us has been ‘twisting.’

it displays a petty desire to win trivial points of no consequence

Only if every point you raised is trivial since I addressed, I think, every point.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Well, if the solipsist is the only being in the universe, he must have developed his language, but it turns out that he learned it from others, ergo...

I don't know. I think that seems a little shaky to me. The definition of the language is that it is inaccessible to other people. This means that whatever language we possess could not have been developed from the language of others because we are not capable of experiencing that other language.

 

[PixyMisa]

You still don't get it. Okay, I'll try again. Let's say you were confronted with a device that was constructed so that if you uttered the words, "I don't think this thing is conscious," it would kill you with a gun attached to it. Being practical, you would refuse to acknowledge your belief that it is an unthinking device to keep from getting killed even though you possess the strongly-felt conviction that it really is such a device. In other words, you are treating this mechanical device as someone who will deny solipsism, and yet you are still looking upon it as a solipsist. This example demonstrates that you don't have to assume consciousness in others in order to interact with them in a way that is beneficial to you, and it really leads to my main point that we act based on cause-and-effect relationships between different experiences.

Ugh.

Like I said before.

The universe doesn't behave like artificial examples, it behaves as that it exists, always and in every way.

People don't behave like artificial examples, they behave as though they are self-aware. (With very few exception.)

To successfully deal with the world, you have to treat it as though it exists. To sucessfully deal with people, you have to treat them as though they are self-aware.

These experiences can either be the result of outside stimuli or completely self-generated, but the relationships between them are certainly there either way.

I KNOW THAT, DAMMIT!!!

In order for materialism to be a more practical choice, you'd have to say that these cause-and-effect relationships would somehow not exist in solipsism. This is not a demonstrable proposition.

SMACK!!!

 

[PixyMisa]

One last time.

No disproof of solipsism is possible. Solipsism is causally closed; it is a purely circular agument, and admits no facts, no evidence, no deductive logic against it.

BUT.

You yourself have found that to successfully deal with your experiences, you have to act as though the world has an independent existence.

THIS DOES NOT DISPROVE SOLIPSISM, SO DON'T BOTHER WHINING!

What it says is that you have already dismissed solipsism as unworkable, and adopted something else. Something along the lines of metaphysical naturalism.

If you are using metaphysical naturalism to make all your decisions, you are no longer a solipsist of any sort.

The only difference between naturalism and materialism is that materialism drops the pretense, and says that if the world always acts as if it is what exists, then let's assume that it is.

You refuse to make that assumption. Well, whatever. But you have already decided for yourself that solipsism is untenable, though inductive logic.

And if you tell me this time that it's not proof, you're even worse than Ian. Because, dammit, I never said it was proof! I explicitly and repeatedly stated that it's not proof! Read what I actually say. Not proof. Got that? Not. Proof.

But you have still dismissed solipsism as untenable, already, of your own accord. Without proof, because we don't get proof in real life.

Welcome to the world. Here's your turtle. Enjoy.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I don't know. I think that seems a little shaky to me. The definition of the language is that it is inaccessible to other people. This means that whatever language we possess could not have been developed from the language of others because we are not capable of experiencing that other language.

Au contraire, language is a social function. It is inaccesible if you just think, but if you want to communicate you need to convert it to behavior that is interpreted by others.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

(reading pixy last answer to Batman)

huh, and Im the one on pixy's ignore list because I was rude! lol

 

[Batman Jr.]

One last time.

No disproof of solipsism is possible. Solipsism is causally closed; it is a purely circular agument, and admits no facts, no evidence, no deductive logic against it.

BUT.

You yourself have found that to successfully deal with your experiences, you have to act as though the world has an independent existence.

THIS DOES NOT DISPROVE SOLIPSISM, SO DON'T BOTHER WHINING!

What it says is that you have already dismissed solipsism as unworkable, and adopted something else. Something along the lines of metaphysical naturalism.

If you are using metaphysical naturalism to make all your decisions, you are no longer a solipsist of any sort.

The only difference between naturalism and materialism is that materialism drops the pretense, and says that if the world always acts as if it is what exists, then let's assume that it is.

You refuse to make that assumption. Well, whatever. But you have already decided for yourself that solipsism is untenable, though inductive logic.

And if you tell me this time that it's not proof, you're even worse than Ian. Because, dammit, I never said it was proof! I explicitly and repeatedly stated that it's not proof! Read what I actually say. Not proof. Got that? Not. Proof.

But you have still dismissed solipsism as untenable, already, of your own accord. Without proof, because we don't get proof in real life.

Welcome to the world. Here's your turtle. Enjoy.

I never asked for proof. What I'm trying to explain to you is that materialism is no more practical than solipsism. You incorrectly presuppose that experiences produced by materialism are somehow going to be more self-consistent than those resultant of no outside source, and that presupposition leads you to the conclusion that a self-consistent experience is something that appears materialistic and thus must be assessed in an according materialistic manner. However, it cannot be said that a self-consistent experience is more likely to be materialistic, and it could likewise just as validly be stated that those self-consistent experiences appear solipsistic. What is actually most practical is to analyze the self-consistency of your experiences in order to know what to do to receive the best of them. This philosophy is neither materialistic nor solipsistic.

 

[Garrette]

Batman, Jr.:

I don't see at all how you got that out of PixyMisa's posts.

PM's analysis does not rest on the quality or consistency of experiences but on the motivation for action.

Actions motivated by an assumption of a solipsistic universe are at best ineffective.

Actions motivated by an assumption of a materialistic universe are effective.

Therefore, the assumption of a materialistic universe is more plausible.

Hope I'm not misrepresenting PM's position. Apologies if I am. But this is how it comes together in my own wee brain.

 

[PixyMisa]

I never asked for proof.

Yes you did. You demand it in every post.

What I'm trying to explain to you is that materialism is no more practical than solipsism.

Which is obviously nonsensical because you yourself deny solipsism in dealing with your experiences - and your actions are in fact entirely compatible with materialism.

Your own behaviour demonstrates that materialism is more practical than solipsism. Just responding to my comments demonstrates that you believe this.

You incorrectly presuppose that experiences produced by materialism are somehow going to be more self-consistent than those resultant of no outside source, and that presupposition leads you to the conclusion that a self-consistent experience is something that appears materialistic and thus must be assessed in an according materialistic manner.

No.

However, it cannot be said that a self-consistent experience is more likely to be materialistic, and it could likewise just as validly be stated that those self-consistent experiences appear solipsistic.

So bleeding what?

That's been the whole bloody point all along.

Anything at all can be explained by solipsism. If your best friend turns into a bunch of daisies, if the sun rises one morning only it's the headlamp of a giant motorcycle, if alien bees suddenly start beaming HBO straight into the vision centre of your brain, it's all perfectly self-consistent and consistent with solipsism.

Which is why solipsism is useless.

What is actually most practical is to analyze the self-consistency of your experiences in order to know what to do to receive the best of them.

And materialism turns out to do this perfectly.

That's why we choose materialism. Not because we have some special proof that it is right, but because when we want to make sense of the world, materialism works. What's more, it always works.

Materialism makes a very strong statement about the nature of reality, and there is good reason to consider that it is falsifiable, which makes it very different to other metaphysical frameworks, and completely different to solipsism.

It has not, of course, been falsified.

This philosophy is neither materialistic nor solipsistic.

No.

The point is, that solipsism fails utterly at this. It cannot do anything at all. Not a thing. No guidance, no differentiation between possible interpretations, NOTHING.

Whereas materialism works. Naturalism works too, but it's just a wishy-washy materialism anyway. Idealism doesn't work, but it still works better than solipsism. Dualism is inherently self-contradictory, and even it works better than solipsism.

Because solipsism doesn't tell you anything.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Batman, Jr.:

I don't see at all how you got that out of PixyMisa's posts.

PM's analysis does not rest on the quality or consistency of experiences but on the motivation for action.

Actions motivated by an assumption of a solipsistic universe are at best ineffective.

Actions motivated by an assumption of a materialistic universe are effective.

Therefore, the assumption of a materialistic universe is more plausible.

Hope I'm not misrepresenting PM's position. Apologies if I am. But this is how it comes together in my own wee brain.

There's a big problem in that, and it reminds me specifically of the argument that Christians make that Christianity makes people act more humanely and thus Christianity is correct for that reason. Motivation that something causes has nothing to do with the plausbility of that something. In fact, we're not talking about plausibility at all, but in fact practicality.

My argument is that we act to receive the experiences most pleasant to us. In order to do this, we observe the self-consistency in our experiences to figure out how to get these pleasant experiences. I think on this we can all agree. PixyMisa claims that we can do this with greater efficacy if we presume materialism. This means that PixyMisa believes that we can somehow get a better idea of this self-consistency if we are thinking in a materialistic mindset. However, I have pointed out that this self-consistency in experience has not been shown to be any different or less likely in the case of solipsism, and it is therefore reasonable to say that such self-consistency cannot be ascribed with even a subtle degree of exclusivity to materialism and that it is no more wrongheaded to say that analyzing this self-consistency is a solipsistically-minded activity. It's a mouthful, but read it over a few times and do your best to get it. If you still have questions, I'll try to clarify.

 

[PixyMisa]

Batman, Jr.:

I don't see at all how you got that out of PixyMisa's posts.

PM's analysis does not rest on the quality or consistency of experiences but on the motivation for action.

Actions motivated by an assumption of a solipsistic universe are at best ineffective.

Actions motivated by an assumption of a materialistic universe are effective.

Therefore, the assumption of a materialistic universe is more plausible.

Hope I'm not misrepresenting PM's position. Apologies if I am. But this is how it comes together in my own wee brain.

That's a large part of it - except that I am arguing purely from utility, and not from plausibility - but it goes further than that.

Solipsism gives you no basis for deciding what actions should be taken. No matter what the situation might be, no matter what your motivation might be, solipsism cannot tell you anything.

There is no reason under solipsism for anything to act in any particular way. Indeed, there is no reason under solipsism. It just is.

The way Batman, Jr. tells us he deals with the real world shows that he has already abandoned solipsism and taken up a position consistent with materialism. Which is why his continuing denial is so frustrating.

BJ, you have already abandoned solipsism. You don't have to become a hardcore materialist all at once. Just admit that solipsism is useless.

I am PixyMisa of Materialism. Solipsism is futile. You will be allowed to adopt a meaningful ontology of your choice.

Yeah, doesn't really work as a threat, does it?

 

[PixyMisa]

There's a big problem in that, and it reminds me specifically of the argument that Christians make that Christianity makes people act more humanely and thus Christianity is correct for that reason. Motivation that something causes has nothing to do with the plausbility of that something. In fact, we're not talking about plausibility at all, but in fact practicality.

Yes.

My argument is that we act to receive the experiences most pleasant to us. In order to do this, we observe the self-consistency in our experiences to figure out how to get these pleasant experiences. I think on this we can all agree. PixyMisa claims that we can do this with greater efficacy if we presume materialism. This means that PixyMisa believes that we can somehow get a better idea of this self-consistency if we are thinking in a materialistic mindset. However, I have pointed out that this self-consistency in experience has not been shown to be any different or less likely in the case of solipsism, and it is therefore reasonable to say that such self-consistency cannot be ascribed with even a subtle degree of exclusivity to materialism and that it is no more wrongheaded to say that analyzing this self-consistency is a solipsistically-minded activity. It's a mouthful, but read it over a few times and do your best to get it. If you still have questions, I'll try to clarify.

Yes. So what?

Nothing is more or less likely or different or distinguishable or anything else in solipsism.

THAT IS WHY WE REJECT IT.

 

[PixyMisa]

BJ, as soon as you start talking about consistency in experiences, you have turned away from solipsism.

Because under solipsism, there is no more reason to expect consistency than inconsistency, or indeed utter randomness.

All other ontologies provide such a reason, even the stupid ones.

Solipsism doesn't even provide for reason.

 

[PixyMisa]

To state it yet another way:

I have a new Grand Unified Theory of Physics.

It is this:

**** happens.

It works perfectly. There is no practical test, indeed no conceivable test, that could possibly dispute it. It's always right, and those guys over at the high energy physics lab have no reason to prefer Quantum Mechanics over **** Mechanics.

EXCEPT that Quantum Mechanics says that certain types of **** don't happen.

And indeed, experiments show that this is true. There are entire classes of **** that never ever show up in our experiments. Infinite ranges of non-existent ****. If that **** did happen, we'd know that Quantum Mechanics was wrong, but it never does.

Materialism is Quantum Mechanics. Solipsism is **** Mechanics.

Now lets see what the forum censor does to this post.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay, kids, four-letter word for excrement.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Because under solipsism, there is no more reason to expect consistency than inconsistency, or indeed utter randomness.

This is the fatal flaw in your reasoning and it is where I've been telling you for the past few posts how you are wrong. There is nothing that says that solipsism will cause randomness. This is an unfounded presumption. In order to say that materialism better explains self-consistency in experience, you'd have to enumerate a good deal of definitely materialistic experiences and see which percentage of them are self-consistent and then do the same thing with solipsistic experiences and find that a higher percentage was yielded in the former group. Without doing this, it cannot be assessed that a self-consistent experience is more likely materialistic than solipsistic or more likely solipsistic than materialistic.

 

[PixyMisa]

This is the fatal flaw in your reasoning and it is where I've been telling you for the past few posts how you are wrong. There is nothing that says that solipsism will cause randomness.

AAAAAARGH!

I NEVER SAID THAT.

This is an unfounded presumption.

It's not an unfounded assumption, because I NEVER SAID THAT.

In order to say that materialism better explains self-consistency in experience, you'd have to enumerate a good deal of definitely materialistic experiences and see which percentage of them are self-consistent and then do the same thing with solipsistic experiences and find that a higher percentage was yielded in the former group. Without doing this, it cannot be assessed that a self-consistent experience is more likely materialistic than solipsistic or more likely solipsistic than materialistic.

That is not even conceptually possible.

And again this is why solipsism is completely useless.

Anything at all, ANYTHING, is consistent with solipsism.

Materialism, however, says some things don't happen. Because of that, materialism helps us understand the world, and decide how to respond appropriately to our experiences. What's more, materialism works.

SOLIPSISM CANNOT DO THIS. EVER.

 

[Interesting Ian]

To state it yet another way:

I have a new Grand Unified Theory of Physics.

It is this:

**** happens.

It works perfectly. There is no practical test, indeed no conceivable test, that could possibly dispute it. It's always right, and those guys over at the high energy physics lab have no reason to prefer Quantum Mechanics over **** Mechanics.

EXCEPT that Quantum Mechanics says that certain types of **** don't happen.

And indeed, experiments show that this is true. There are entire classes of **** that never ever show up in our experiments. Infinite ranges of non-existent ****. If that **** did happen, we'd know that Quantum Mechanics was wrong, but it never does.

Materialism is Quantum Mechanics. Solipsism is **** Mechanics.

Now lets see what the forum censor does to this post.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay, kids, four-letter word for excrement.

PixyMisa, I'm afraid Batman is correct. Give it up.

 

[PixyMisa]

PixyMisa, I'm afraid Batman is correct. Give it up.

Some of his statements are correct, but they are entirely irrelevant to the question.

It's rather like this:

Me: (Presents evidence for quantum mechanics.)
Batman, Jr: No, fish live in water.
Me: Yes, I know fish live in water. (Presents further evidence for quantum mechanics.)
Batman, Jr: You can't tell me that. I know fish live in water. Your theory is worthless.
Me: I never mentioned anything about fish! (Presents yet more evidence for quantum mechanics.)
Batman, Jr: That's a very common misperception held by people who have only encountered dead fish. But when they were alive, they lived in water.
Me: Will you shut up about the bloody fish?!
Ian: Give it up, he's right. Fish do live in water.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Pixy… Beautifully put.

Batmans meandering monologues really don’t say anything.

He defends solipsism.
But declares he is not a solipsist
He declares he is a weak solipsist.
Then declares his world view is not solipsistic.

Whew.

The only point any of us tried to make is solipsism is an intellectual exercise only. It is ridiculous to have it as a worldview. It is pointless and illogical and serves NO purpose but to derail any logical argument about existence.

Much like Ian’s immaterialism !