And so we're back to where I was about a dozeon posts ago - "Apparently, you and I have very different ideas about what consititutes solopsism."

As I understand it, solipsism rejects the idea that anything other then self exists. And since I believe that things other than self exist, I don't see it as fitting under the label of solipsism.

Ok, we all know reality is not necessarily what we entail it to be, this is why solipsism is so idiotic.

Please pay close attention to the distinction between what is, and what can be known.

For a philosophy to be solipsism you must have an environment that has only a single consciousness and a single creator, or trickster, or provider of detail, whatever you want to call it.

Here is the sticking point, either you believe that there is a separate reality from what you perceive or you don't. Beliefs as we all know are subjective and hardly a good starting point for rational discourse.

If you think that reality starts with mind, and thinking builds up to form, then the first principle is that thought must occur before form.

The only logical conclusion from that is that a singular mind starts it all.

From that all you can assume is that a single mind exists. Which given Cogito Ergo sum ( I think therefore I am), means it could very well be your mind tricking you into thinking other minds exist.

If a single mind exists as your premise you must assume a mind at least one, exists.

However you cannot prove, or even know, if another mind exists. So with out assuming that laws of nature exist this situation puts you in a place where solipsism is the difference between epistemology, and ontology.

Where what is known, is no different that what can be . . .


You can never know anything about reality, you are stuck in a situation where you must assume everything, quite a pathetic place to be in given all that we can accomplish with naturalism . . . .


Essentially naturalism is a given becuase it explains so much more of the working reality we experience, and other philosophies just flounder around seeking meaning even several thousands of years after there introduction . . .

_______________________________________________________

Buzzed philosophy on a Monday, who knew . . .

And still I smash my opponents, I knew there was a reason I was so mature and knew more than anyone else on the planet earth. Wow such an authority on every subject I am, I think ill start a thread where I talk about how poeple under 31 are so smart and mature . . .

If you ever grow up let me know, maybe we can actually have a mature conversation someday. I won't bother holding my breath, so take all the time you need.

The problem with cognito ergo sum is that it assumes logic is not part of the deception.

Well that's the simplest definition. If you go deeper it's about about what it's possible to know.

Abracadabra wrote:

... The laws of physics are nothing more than mankind's feeble attempt to describe what can't be explained. That just a fact. And the laws of physics of quantum mechanics drive home the point. Even when we see nothing more than mere random probabilites we just recognize that this is the "law of nature"

Even if Cogito ergo sum is apart of the deception its still solipsism, only that the single mind is possibly both the deceiver and the deceived.


Perhaps you can elaborate on what you meant, I get the feeling we agree.
Right, in fact that was the history of the term. Its very inception regards the nature of knowledge and it clearly shows us one of two paths, belief that nothing can be known, which abra has said over and over again in various ways, or the belief that we can know things.

Its funny how the fact is known, and the fact is that we do not know.

I have already shown my evidence (and I was right, --you apparently don't follow it or don't get it.) If you don''t accept or comprehend the evidence I submitted, then it must not be enough evidence for you. You can now conclude that "I have none." That is your conclusion and your closure on the matter. But don't ask me (or expect me) to say "I have none." I gave examples of today's designers and where science is headed.. inevitably towards creating and designing life itself, and even universes and black holes, and that is not enough for you to see where that is going. You don't get it. We are the designers of this and future universes.

Shoku said:

-->How many times do I have to explain to you<--- that "we design things" is not evidence for what people are talking about here?
"The Dodo is extinct." "Nu uh, I have a dog." "We're not talking about dogs here." "But they're the same size!"

What evidence do you have for an intelligent designer before life on Earth? I remember the butterfly stuff but I'm kind of involved with talking to three people in here and I've got exams looming overhead so it's a bit difficult to recall everything you've said.

JB,

What is gained by your personal philosophy? I mean, where does it lead?

Do you think that doesn't look like petty name calling to anyone? Is there somebody you're trying to impress?

Well that's the simplest definition. If you go deeper it's about what it's possible to know.

The characters in a game are representations of people - are they actual, real people? No. They're illusions that look like people.

I know illusion sounds a bit more like magic than technology but there's no significant difference between how "real" these things are.

If our whole existence is a game we're all just imaginary. Whether it's exactly an idea in someone/thing's head or that idea has been written out into some kind of computer program doesn't matter. It's just as fictional.

Maybe they're trying to impress each other with their repsective name-calling abilities?

Well, I can certain do without any need to call people fools.

In fact, I certainly hope that people realize that I have never done any such thing.

Bushio thinks that I'm a fool because I'm looking at things deeper than he is willing to look.

I'm fully aware of the success of macro physics and the "laws" that we have observed. I've worked in technology my entire life. I'm fully aware that we've put men on the moon and we have destroyed entire cities of people with our scientifically successful nuclear bombs.

The technological successes of science are not in question. Of course a person would need to be a fool to question that.

If he thinks I'm that shallow then he's not even thinking at all.

The bottom line when it comes to the philosophy of the truest essence of reality must transcend these shallow observations and look at the core issues.

Yes, we live in a world of macro phenomena. And anyone would indeed need to be a fool not to recognize this well-established observation.

None the less, we have also advanced in our ability to observe relality to a point that goes beyond that.

Even Bushio recognizes that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is actually quite certain.

In fact, it is the single most verified physical observation that we currently have. Nothing has been more verified experimentally than Quantum Mechanics and that absolutely includes the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

We also know that virtual particles must exist (or at least some phenomenon that behaves in a way that we have labeled as 'virtual particles') In either case, the very concept of virtual particles popping into and out of 'physical existence' is a very well-accepted and well-established part of modern science.

So now Bushio is going to call me a "fool" for actually accepting these modern scientifically established ideas?

In the meantime he's trying to paint an almost "Newtonian" macro picture of reality whilst totally ignoring the quantum realm as being irrelevant.

With all due respect to everyone involved, it makes absolutely no sense to me for someone to be arguing that they support a "Scientific view" of the world whist simultaneously rejecting the very heart and pillar of modern science which anyone who knows anything about science at all knows is indeed Quantum Mechanics.

This idea that Quantum Mechanics doesn't apply to the macro world so we can just ignore it, is to do nothing more than ignore the real issues and questions in favor of pretending that science is a Salad Bar where you can just pick and chose which parts of it you'd like to accept.

So call me a fool all you want. That part I truly couldn't care less about.

But if you claim that your make-believe ideas of science should be considered as 'scientific' then please excuse me whilst I have a good belly roll.



Hell's bells, sometimes I feel like I'm the only one here who's willing to genuinely accept the discoveries of modern science, whilst the people who claim to be scientific are calling me a 'fool'.

How ironic is that?

I'll just make one more comment from the viewpoint of science and see how this is accepted.

It is the view of modern science that everything in this universe is made of atoms, and/or subatomic particles called lepton, and quarks.

It is the view of modern science that even the forces in this universe can be reduces to quanta of energy that we call bosons.

It is the view of modern science that Quantum Mechanics is the currently accepted theory that describes the behavior of the very things that modern science holds that this universe is ultimately made of.

Now, you can either accept the above as being true, or you can suggest that I'm a fool and have it all wrong. That's up to you.

However, if you accept that the above correct, then on what grounds can anyone suggest that Quantum Mechanics is unimportant when considering the true essence of the nature of reality.

Answer me that.

Bushio wrote:

You are a fool all you need is a little jester hat, you certainly make a fool of the practice of science.

Its the science jester, magic man abracadabra.

The problem with religion (that I think everyone here recognizes,) is that it stalls your personal growth. You end up a permanent child and the only form of maturity praised is the growing dull enough to not ask questions.

Unfortunately I see most of this spiritualism in the same light. What I would really like right now is not for them to go on the defensive about that but look at themselves and see how this "whatever you believe" stuff is just a way to halt ever having to accept reality.

There's nothing to be found in what you believe. To say that's all that matters is to claim that you already know everything and with as much distaste as they seem to have when they claim we're doing that I can only hope that this is eye opening.

Yup foolish. How is it even remotely possible to think this is the argument at hand . . .