"Midwinter" <midwinter_m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:h4adnWmYRLTqLDTaRVnyhgA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "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."
Dealing with the 'real world' requires the the use of real world facts -
not
your wild emagination. Get your head out of your imaginary Gods ass and
deal with the real world.
> 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?
|
