"Midwinter" <midwinter_m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:Ab-dncUsd5XN_DXanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <this@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said :
>
>>> In fact, you cannot even produce objective, verifiable evidence that
>>> G. Bush is the President of the United States. Oh, you can produce
>>> newspaper re****ts, you might even produce the man himself should it
>>> happen that he is at your beck and call. But how will I know this
>>> man is indeed the president? I cannot.
>>
>> Are you a solipsist?
>
> Pardon me butting in - but solipsism is an interesting question,
> especially asked in one of Bill's threads.
Solipsism is a dead end.
>
> Given that my consciousness is the only one I can know for certain
> actually exists, solipsism would seem to be a reasonable conclusion.
Then who are you talking to?
> According to the standards demanded by Bill et al, I should accept the
> possibility that others have similar consciousness only if there is
> *verifiable, objective evidence* to that effect. But of course, there
> isn't. Everything I perceive - including whatever evidence you might
> show me - is dependent on my perceptions. And if for whatever reason my
> perceptions don't show me what really exists, then what evidence could
> you ever provide?
Well, if you don't have a grip on reality then, yes, there
is no evidence that works for you.
>
> Fortunately, I don't adhere to the strict standards demanded by some
> here, and so, without any 'verifiable, objective evidence', and based
> solely on my gut feeling, I accept that others experience consciousness
> in their own way, just as I do in mine.
Gut feeling? You mean it is not repeated consistent
observations? What is your gut feeling about fire?
Is it hot?
>
> This is one of the big problems that faces those who live their lives
> crowing about 'verifiable, objective evidence'. They don't grasp that
> even supposedly objective evidence can only serve as such within a
> certain frame of reference.
How would you know? You don't know what
reality is. You only have your unreliable perceptions.
> If the question being considered is the very
> nature of reality (into which category the matter of gods must surely
> fall), then we cannot find answers. There are no instruments we can
use,
> no tests we can run, no observations we can make, that will serve as
> 'objective' evidence to answer this question. All our methods of
> observing the reality around us (or what we suppose to be the reality
> around us) are contained within that reality, and are therefore
> subjective in nature. If my perceptions are flawed - and that's
required
> for the solipsist view to apply - then everything that comes in via
those
> perceptions is also flawed. Thus, no evidence from *outside* my
> consciousness can be trusted or considered 'objective' (and obviously,
> nothing originating *inside* can be objective either).
I hope you don't have a driver's license. I'd hate to think
what would happen when you don't trust your perception
of a red light.
<snip>
> the fundamental questions of reality - like solipsism - cannot be
> sup****ted or denied through science.
What is real that can't be sup****ted by science?
|
