"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <this@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said :
>> Pardon me butting in - but solipsism is an interesting question,
>> especially asked in one of Bill's threads.
>
> Solipsism is a dead end.
But that alone doesn't rule it out.
>> 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?
Read again. You'll see that I said:
"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."
The point remains that that is an assumption based on reasoning alone -
it cannot be verified with objective evidence.
> Well, if you don't have a grip on reality then, yes, there
> is no evidence that works for you.
What you call 'reality' is simply your own assumption, as my reality is
mine. They may be the same. But unless you can provide objective,
verifiable evidence for it as a *universal* reality, then, essentially,
you cling to a belief and call it undeniable fact.
> Gut feeling? You mean it is not repeated consistent
> observations?
It is indeed. But as I said, if I assume that my perceptions might be
flawed in some fundamental way, what forces the observations I make to be
accurate?
> What is your gut feeling about fire? Is it hot?
It certainly appears to be, yes - and I certainly feel pain when I burn
myself. But again, that is merely my perception. I *think* I feel pain.
It may be that I do - but there is no objective way for me to test it,
since everything I experience is based on the perceptions that may be
flawed, and the consciousness that may or may not be real. Every
scientific or logical tool I might use to *****s the world around me is
part of the world around me. I can use those tools to establish how the
world I see around me might work - but ultimately I cannot use them to
establish that that world as a whole is truly real.
Your points here are all perfectly reasonable, as far as they go - but
they all depend on a pre-established assumption that what you see is
what's actually there.
>> 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.
True enough.
> 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.
Very clever, that.
I have a full, clean driving licence, and quite a number of years spent
driving in accordance with traffic regulations. I cannot say whether
those traffic regulations are truly 'real', because I do not know whether
the world around me is real, or whether I myself am real. However, I
cannot do otherwise than act in accordance with my perceptions, flawed
though they may be.
We have already discussed the fact that I perceive fire to be hot.
>> 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?
What is real?
|
