“AI”, students, and epistemic crisis.

[D]

Found this article and thought that you might be interested. What will
happen when we no longer have a shared world of facts which we can refer
to?

Weird interaction with a student this week. They keep coming up with
weird “facts” (“Greek is actually a combination of four other languages”)
that left me baffled. I said let’s look this stuff up together, and they
said OK, I’ll open a search bar, and they opened 
 Ch*tGPT. And I was like
“this is not a search bar” and they were like “yes it is, you can search
for anything in here”.

The thing that made me feel crazy is like, every kid that’s using this
as a browser is getting new bespoke false “facts”. This isn’t “a
widespread misconception about X that stems from how it’s taught in
schools.” Each individual kid is now hooked into a Nonsense Machine.

With the “widespread misconception about X” you can start at a
baseline. Like, OK, in tenth grade we talk about X thing from history, and
that leaves us with some misguided concepts about X, but we can correct
that as students get broader understandings of the world. But with this,
each child is getting unique wrong facts they are sure are correct 

because they did what we told them to do! They “looked it up”! They got it
from somewhere! It’s not a kid making up a belief on hearsay and
assumption 
 it’s something they think they learned.

This kid was extremely combative with me, and I understood why. I was
sitting in front of him telling him that the internet, a computer,
technology, all these supposedly authoritative things 
 were wrong. And
that I, one person, was right. He basically couldn’t believe me. He
decided that I was simply a teacher who’d made a mistake. He could check
it, after all! He could look it up! He could find the real facts. I
obviously hadn’t done that, I was just an adult who’d decided I was
smarter than him. Hence the defensiveness. Like I said: I understood.

It was so fucking rough. I did my best, but I am one person trying to
work against a campaign of misinformation so vast that it fucking
terrifies me. This kid is being set up for a life lived entirely inside
the hall of mirrors.

Transcribed from Twitter. The author took it down because of harassment,
so I am not going to point to who they were. Not that I know anything
about them anyway. So you have to make your own tricky call about whether
and how it is relevant.

https://miniver.blogspot.com/2024/07/ai-students-and-epistemic-crisis.html
.

[W. Greenhouse]

Post by D
Found this article and thought that you might be interested. What will
happen when we no longer have a shared world of facts which we can
refer to?

When was this not the case?

[Richmond]

Post by W. Greenhouse

Post by D
Found this article and thought that you might be interested. What will
happen when we no longer have a shared world of facts which we can
refer to?

When was this not the case?

When you collide with someone.

[D]

Post by Richmond

Post by W. Greenhouse

Post by D
Found this article and thought that you might be interested. What will
happen when we no longer have a shared world of facts which we can
refer to?

When was this not the case?

When you collide with someone.

When you jump off a cliff? Oh, that would be another case of colliding. ;)
I am fascinated by people who argue there are no facts and no eternal
world for two reasons.

1. They tend to hurt when they hit a rock.

2. They have never managed to disprove the world.

3. Even if they do not believe in the world and facts, they still seem
pretty intent on arguing their point with other people, even though there
is no point to argue. ;)

[x]

Post by D

Post by Richmond

Post by W. Greenhouse

Post by D
Found this article and thought that you might be interested. What will
happen when we no longer have a shared world of facts which we can
refer to?

When was this not the case?

When you collide with someone.

When you jump off a cliff? Oh, that would be another case of colliding.
;) I am fascinated by people who argue there are no facts and no eternal
world for two reasons.

Eternal or external? Can you prove an infinite amount of
time without living forever to prove eternity exists? Or
is that a guess or indirect inference?

Of course if you are talking about mind then does a mind
have an interior or exterior?

Eternal or external, was that a typo? Does arguing
for or against something imply that something can be
proven or disproven? Doesn't everyone have different
definitions of that anyway?

Post by D
1. They tend to hurt when they hit a rock.
2. They have never managed to disprove the world.
3. Even if they do not believe in the world and facts, they still seem
pretty intent on arguing their point with other people, even though
there is no point to argue. ;)

[W. Greenhouse]

Post by D

Post by Richmond

Post by W. Greenhouse

Post by D
Found this article and thought that you might be interested. What will
happen when we no longer have a shared world of facts which we can
refer to?

When was this not the case?

When you collide with someone.

When you jump off a cliff? Oh, that would be another case of
colliding. ;) I am fascinated by people who argue there are no facts
and no eternal world for two reasons.
1. They tend to hurt when they hit a rock.
2. They have never managed to disprove the world.
3. Even if they do not believe in the world and facts, they still seem
pretty intent on arguing their point with other people, even though
there is no point to argue. ;)

I don't argue that there are no facts, but that allegations of epistemic
crisis/the end of literacy/[insert moral panic about the youth, the
times, and their lack of morals] are everpresent, and oversold. Have
been since Cicero at least.

[D]

Post by W. Greenhouse

Post by D

Post by Richmond

Post by W. Greenhouse

Post by D
Found this article and thought that you might be interested. What will
happen when we no longer have a shared world of facts which we can
refer to?

When was this not the case?

When you collide with someone.

When you jump off a cliff? Oh, that would be another case of
colliding. ;) I am fascinated by people who argue there are no facts
and no eternal world for two reasons.
1. They tend to hurt when they hit a rock.
2. They have never managed to disprove the world.
3. Even if they do not believe in the world and facts, they still seem
pretty intent on arguing their point with other people, even though
there is no point to argue. ;)

I don't argue that there are no facts, but that allegations of epistemic
crisis/the end of literacy/[insert moral panic about the youth, the
times, and their lack of morals] are everpresent, and oversold. Have
been since Cicero at least.

Thank you for the clarification. What do you think indicates that we are
doing better than ever when it comes to epistemic crisis?

[W. Greenhouse]

Post by D

Post by W. Greenhouse
I don't argue that there are no facts, but that allegations of epistemic
crisis/the end of literacy/[insert moral panic about the youth, the
times, and their lack of morals] are everpresent, and oversold. Have
been since Cicero at least.

Thank you for the clarification. What do you think indicates that we
are doing better than ever when it comes to epistemic crisis?

We're doing no better and no worse. It is the curse of the aged to think
the young know nothing, and the curse of the young to think they know
everything.

[D]

Post by W. Greenhouse

Post by D

Post by W. Greenhouse
I don't argue that there are no facts, but that allegations of epistemic
crisis/the end of literacy/[insert moral panic about the youth, the
times, and their lack of morals] are everpresent, and oversold. Have
been since Cicero at least.

Thank you for the clarification. What do you think indicates that we
are doing better than ever when it comes to epistemic crisis?

We're doing no better and no worse. It is the curse of the aged to think
the young know nothing, and the curse of the young to think they know
everything.

This just sounds like a statement to me. =(

[oldernow]

Post by D
I am fascinated by people who argue there are no facts
and no eternal world for two reasons.

Assuming you meant the symbol 'external' by the symbol

Post by D
1. They tend to hurt when they hit a rock.

Does not the symbol 'psychosomatic' suggest the possibility
of hurt sans an external world to cause it?

Post by D
2. They have never managed to disprove the world.

With what? Words? If so, why would you accept cousins to
the "stuff" dreams are made of as capable of providing
proof/disproof of stuff alleged to not be the "stuff"
dreams are made of?

Post by D
3. Even if they do not believe in the world and facts,
they still seem pretty intent on arguing their point with
other people, even though there is no point to argue. ;)

Could it be they're fascinated by doing so seeming to
provoke the kind of post this one is in reply to, and they
so love typing that of course they're going to create as
many opportunities to type as they possibly can?

[D]

Post by oldernow

Post by D
I am fascinated by people who argue there are no facts
and no eternal world for two reasons.

Assuming you meant the symbol 'external' by the symbol

Yes! =) I blame the wife for talking to me when writing. ;)

Post by oldernow

Post by D
1. They tend to hurt when they hit a rock.

Does not the symbol 'psychosomatic' suggest the possibility
of hurt sans an external world to cause it?

I think not. I think an easier theory is that the rock hurts and the
external world exists. ;) I've experienced psycho-somateic "death" in
others, and for being psycho-somatic it sure seemed real to me, and the
dead never came back.

Post by oldernow

Post by D
2. They have never managed to disprove the world.

With what? Words? If so, why would you accept cousins to
the "stuff" dreams are made of as capable of providing
proof/disproof of stuff alleged to not be the "stuff"
dreams are made of?

The way of proof is entirely up to the people who would like to prove that
the world does not exist, and instead of it, something else does. To my
knowledge, this has never been done.

I think it is reasonable to assume the default state of an external world,
and have people who disagree with this, provide disproving the world, and
showing that something else exists.

I refer to G.E. Moores "here is a hand" proof. Silly on the surface, but
very profound if you think about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand

Post by oldernow

Post by D
3. Even if they do not believe in the world and facts,
they still seem pretty intent on arguing their point with
other people, even though there is no point to argue. ;)

Could it be they're fascinated by doing so seeming to
provoke the kind of post this one is in reply to, and they
so love typing that of course they're going to create as
many opportunities to type as they possibly can?

But that would imply an external world, or if not, the person would enjoy
talking to himself. If he believes that everything is just himself, that
would be a collapse into solipsism, and ultimate doubt. Note that with
that position, the only thing you could ever trust is the present moment.
You also could not trust your identity. However, what you would have to
acknowledge, regardless of illusion, is that for any eventual illusion to
take place, some kind of processing need to take place in some kind of
medium over time. That would imply an external world.

But I think, at the end of the day, the best proof I can offer you of an
external world is G.E. Moores, as well as the fact that you do seem to
enjoy interacting with others, and that to me, the fact that they exist
seems to be a better explanation, instead of denying everything except
consciousness.

[Richmond]

This all became quite confusing quite quickly, but I was not able to
read the first post in the thread. I have now found it here:

https://alt.philosophy.narkive.com/WardN2rr/ai-students-and-epistemic-crisis

and it points to this article:

https://miniver.blogspot.com/2024/07/ai-students-and-epistemic-crisis.html

My first thought is that anyone who litters their speech with the word
'like' in this way shouldn't be teaching students.

But leaving that aside, the context is rather different from the shared
physical reality.

But anyway, I am going to waffle on about neither of those things, but
instead about the shared reality which is not physical. Because
everything that human beings experience through the senses has to come
through some mental processing before it reaches consciousness. This
means that reality is both shared, and subjective. And it also means
that reality includes content which comes from the unconscious, but does
not originate in the physical world. This is as real as anything else in
its impact on us.

[D]

Post by Richmond
This all became quite confusing quite quickly, but I was not able to
https://alt.philosophy.narkive.com/WardN2rr/ai-students-and-epistemic-crisis
https://miniver.blogspot.com/2024/07/ai-students-and-epistemic-crisis.html
My first thought is that anyone who litters their speech with the word
'like' in this way shouldn't be teaching students.
But leaving that aside, the context is rather different from the shared
physical reality.
But anyway, I am going to waffle on about neither of those things, but
instead about the shared reality which is not physical. Because
everything that human beings experience through the senses has to come
through some mental processing before it reaches consciousness. This
means that reality is both shared, and subjective. And it also means
that reality includes content which comes from the unconscious, but does
not originate in the physical world. This is as real as anything else in
its impact on us.

But do note, that even in the case of the unconscious, the content comes
from the physical world, since we are beings in the physical world,
consisting of matter.

So that doesn't work either unless you're a dualist, which also flies in
the face of physicalism/materialism.

[Richmond]

Post by D
But do note, that even in the case of the unconscious, the content
comes from the physical world, since we are beings in the physical
world, consisting of matter.

Yes but you don't know that directly because you don't know what the
physical world is directly, no one does. We only have a model of it, and
science only has a model of it too. Quarks, bosons, strings, quantum
entanglement, it's all pretty weird isn't it? The world we live in is
not that one, it's a subjective world where solid objects are really
solid, without nutrionos flying through them.

Post by D
So that doesn't work either unless you're a dualist, which also flies
in the face of physicalism/materialism.

Perception of the world is a product of evolution.

[D]

Post by Richmond

Post by D
But do note, that even in the case of the unconscious, the content
comes from the physical world, since we are beings in the physical
world, consisting of matter.

Yes but you don't know that directly because you don't know what the
physical world is directly, no one does. We only have a model of it, and
science only has a model of it too. Quarks, bosons, strings, quantum
entanglement, it's all pretty weird isn't it? The world we live in is
not that one, it's a subjective world where solid objects are really
solid, without nutrionos flying through them.

Yes! But that is my entire point. Nothing can be conclusively proven if
you doubt everything. However, the physical worlds, and other people have
the highest amount of experiential proof, and the most coherence, so the
default assumption is the physical world, and any one who disagrees has
the burden of proof.

But I am not quarreling with solipsists and extreme skeptics, they are
true. If you doubt everything, nothing can be proven, not even yourself.

Yet, in their daily actions, they do tend to act as if the physical world
exist, and they deal with others in such a way (at least all I have met)
which to me, proves that they do in fact believe in the physical world.

On pragmatic grouns I think that they should just admit the physical
world, since the underlying substratum for them, makes no difference in
how they act. Their belief does not affect their behaviour or way of
interacting with the world in any way.

Post by Richmond

Post by D
So that doesn't work either unless you're a dualist, which also flies
in the face of physicalism/materialism.

Perception of the world is a product of evolution.

We are a product of evolution, I agree.

[Richmond]

Post by D
Yes! But that is my entire point. Nothing can be conclusively proven
if you doubt everything. However, the physical worlds, and other
people have the highest amount of experiential proof, and the most
coherence, so the default assumption is the physical world, and any
one who disagrees has the burden of proof.

That isn't how science works. There aren't default assumptions. There
are the observed phenomena. You can doubt the origin of some
observation, but you cannot really doubt the observation. So I might
observe trails in a cloud chamber. I theorize they are caused by
electrons. I could doubt the theory, maybe they are caused by something
else, and I cannot observe the electrons directly. But I cannot doubt
the observed trail. Doubting observations is the way to madness.

Post by D
But I am not quarreling with solipsists and extreme skeptics, they are
true. If you doubt everything, nothing can be proven, not even
yourself.

I don't know any such people.

Post by D
Yet, in their daily actions, they do tend to act as if the physical
world exist, and they deal with others in such a way (at least all I
have met) which to me, proves that they do in fact believe in the
physical world.
On pragmatic grouns I think that they should just admit the physical
world, since the underlying substratum for them, makes no difference
in how they act. Their belief does not affect their behaviour or way
of interacting with the world in any way.

Where do you meet such people?

[D]

Post by Richmond

Post by D
Yes! But that is my entire point. Nothing can be conclusively proven
if you doubt everything. However, the physical worlds, and other
people have the highest amount of experiential proof, and the most
coherence, so the default assumption is the physical world, and any
one who disagrees has the burden of proof.

That isn't how science works. There aren't default assumptions. There
are the observed phenomena. You can doubt the origin of some

Sorry for being unclear, that is what I tried to say. But keep in mind
that I am addressing skeptics and not scientists.

Post by Richmond
observation, but you cannot really doubt the observation. So I might
observe trails in a cloud chamber. I theorize they are caused by
electrons. I could doubt the theory, maybe they are caused by something
else, and I cannot observe the electrons directly. But I cannot doubt
the observed trail. Doubting observations is the way to madness.

Post by D
But I am not quarreling with solipsists and extreme skeptics, they are
true. If you doubt everything, nothing can be proven, not even yourself.

I don't know any such people.

Post by D
Yet, in their daily actions, they do tend to act as if the physical
world exist, and they deal with others in such a way (at least all I
have met) which to me, proves that they do in fact believe in the
physical world.
On pragmatic grouns I think that they should just admit the physical
world, since the underlying substratum for them, makes no difference
in how they act. Their belief does not affect their behaviour or way
of interacting with the world in any way.

Where do you meet such people?

Philosophy meetups, usenet, philosophy departments.

[oldernow]

Post by D

Post by oldernow
Assuming you meant the symbol 'external' by the symbol

Yes! =) I blame the wife for talking to me when writing. ;)

How dare you not recognize her angelic intent in helping
you transcend external unto eternal! :-)

Post by D
I think an easier theory is that the rock hurts and the
external world exists. ;)

I think an even easier theory is that all that seems
to be is mind only, but some of it considered (again,
another mental operation) external, real, etc.

That seems even more inclusive than your external
world theory, because the mind only theory accounts
for all phenomena, including mind (sure, that leads to
self-referentiality looping).. but the "external world"
theory can't seem to explain - i.e. account for - the
likes of mind, beings, self, etc.

Post by D
I refer to G.E. Moores "here is a hand" proof. Silly on
the surface, but very profound if you think about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand

But that Wikipedia entry doesn't even mention an
observer in its summary at the top, which seems a
necessary component of "knowing" (is there knowing
without a knower?) a hand or two.. and yet trying
to find that observer leads to nothing but a set of
thoughts/concepts seemingly repeated to itself. In
other words, said observer doesn't consist of anything
observable/conceivable/nameable.

If the observer is that flimsy a "reality", what about
the solidity of whatever it tells itself it observes?

And don't forget that words imply an objective/external
reality. In fact, the degree of seeming real-ness seems
proportional to the frequency and intensity with which
the words are repeated.

Given that, the more we discuss, the more real/external
the world will seem *unless/until* a phrase or
passage or two/more triggers the all-important
word/concept/representation -less "insperience" that flies
below the representational plane, so to speak....

Where is the world in absence of a mind to know it -
aka insist it be so and thus?

Post by D

Post by oldernow

Post by D
3. Even if they do not believe in the world and facts,
they still seem pretty intent on arguing their point with
other people, even though there is no point to argue. ;)

Could it be they're fascinated by doing so seeming to
provoke the kind of post this one is in reply to, and they
so love typing that of course they're going to create as
many opportunities to type as they possibly can?

But that would imply an external world, or if not, the
person would enjoy talking to himself.

But such "happens" in dreams too. Is a given dream's world
external? The self/observer therein surely thinks it is,
and yet all of a sudden POOF! both that world and that
self are gone upon "awakening".

Hmmm... how do you know with certainty that's not what's
seemingly happening "here" apart from a vinyl record
sort of skipping/repeating that this is a special case,
and the others are "merely" dreams? Because that sense
of "special case" i.e. "this is *REALLY* happening" -
is present in dreams as well.

Post by D
If he believes that everything is just himself, that would
be a collapse into solipsism, and ultimate doubt.

You say that like it's a bad thing ("collapse"), something
to be avoided, etc.

Could a purely conceived being possibly conceive of its
purely conceptual underpinnings? And isn't using words by
definition and attempt to conceive?

Post by D
Note that with that position, the only thing you could
ever trust is the present moment. You also could not trust
your identity. However, what you would have to acknowledge,
regardless of illusion, is that for any eventual illusion
to take place, some kind of processing need to take place
in some kind of medium over time. That would imply an
external world.

It could also imply imagining an external world and
blessing that world with non-merely-imagined-hood.

Isn't taking that world to be external-to/apart-from a
modeler the worst possible model for a modeler? Sounds
like a guaranteed recipe for alone-liness, and subsequent
flavors of anguish rooted in alone-liness.

And don't individuals mentally perform that "imagine and
declare the reality - and details thereof - of that which
is imagined" operation incessantly? Perhaps incessantly
enough to generate a damned convincing "world" containing
that individual?

[D]

Post by oldernow

Post by D

Post by oldernow
Assuming you meant the symbol 'external' by the symbol

Yes! =) I blame the wife for talking to me when writing. ;)

How dare you not recognize her angelic intent in helping
you transcend external unto eternal! :-)

Apologies! I thought that's what they were for? ;)

Post by oldernow

Post by D
I think an easier theory is that the rock hurts and the
external world exists. ;)

I think an even easier theory is that all that seems
to be is mind only, but some of it considered (again,
another mental operation) external, real, etc.

That seems to me to be easier just as it is easier to say that god
created everything, instead of using science. It is an easier statement,
but proving the statement, explaining how it came into being, how it
fits into science, the material world, and how all that is illusion,
sounds to me to be vastly more complicated as a theory, than accepting
the physical world and our current best scientific explanation.

After all, what's the point of discussion, if there is no one to discuss
with?

And ethics falls, and meaning too. But, a solipsist position is
impossible to disprove, even though I argue, that the burden of proof
lies on the solipsist to disprove the world, rather than for the world
to disprove the solipsist.

Post by oldernow
That seems even more inclusive than your external
world theory, because the mind only theory accounts
for all phenomena, including mind (sure, that leads to
self-referentiality looping).. but the "external world"
theory can't seem to explain - i.e. account for - the
likes of mind, beings, self, etc.

But it does. We know perfectly well where we come from, how parts of
minds works, etc. But here's the beauty, we definitely do _not_
understand everything. But as far as I can tell, the physical world is
pretty well proven, especially on pragmatic grounds.

If you act, as if the world exist, and if the world acts as if it did
have external existence, there's really no point in adding the "mind"
aspect to it at all, that explains nothing, and adds nothing to the theory.

Post by oldernow

Post by D
I refer to G.E. Moores "here is a hand" proof. Silly on
the surface, but very profound if you think about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand

But that Wikipedia entry doesn't even mention an
observer in its summary at the top, which seems a
necessary component of "knowing" (is there knowing
without a knower?) a hand or two.. and yet trying

Oh, it is taking from a lecture and a paper. The observer is everyone in
the room, including the philosopher himself.

Post by oldernow
to find that observer leads to nothing but a set of
thoughts/concepts seemingly repeated to itself. In
other words, said observer doesn't consist of anything
observable/conceivable/nameable.

I disgaree. I just performed the experiment with my wife and everyone
passed with flying colors! =) She was extremely convinced about the
external world.

Post by oldernow
If the observer is that flimsy a "reality", what about
the solidity of whatever it tells itself it observes?

You lost me there.

Post by oldernow
And don't forget that words imply an objective/external
reality. In fact, the degree of seeming real-ness seems
proportional to the frequency and intensity with which
the words are repeated.

Haha... perhaps. To me the intensity of seeming real-ness increases the
more I try to break the laws of physics. It tends to hurt! No words
necessary. ;)

Post by oldernow
Given that, the more we discuss, the more real/external
the world will seem *unless/until* a phrase or
passage or two/more triggers the all-important
word/concept/representation -less "insperience" that flies
below the representational plane, so to speak....
Where is the world in absence of a mind to know it -
aka insist it be so and thus?

Just where it is. If we're talking about your absent mind (be that
heaven, death or transcendence) the world is not from your point of
view, which does no longer exist. But from the point of views of other
people, the world still exists. And should no one exist, the world still
exist as a bunch of atoms.

Post by oldernow

Post by D

Post by oldernow

Post by D
3. Even if they do not believe in the world and facts,
they still seem pretty intent on arguing their point with
other people, even though there is no point to argue. ;)

Could it be they're fascinated by doing so seeming to
provoke the kind of post this one is in reply to, and they
so love typing that of course they're going to create as
many opportunities to type as they possibly can?

But that would imply an external world, or if not, the
person would enjoy talking to himself.

But such "happens" in dreams too. Is a given dream's world
external? The self/observer therein surely thinks it is,
and yet all of a sudden POOF! both that world and that
self are gone upon "awakening".

Yes, and I think the key here is that you wake up. We also know
perfectly well what dreams are, what they look like when we observe the
brain and so on, so nothing mystical going on there. Based on that,
dreams are also a physical phenomenon, ultimately grounded in... the
external world. ;)

Post by oldernow
Hmmm... how do you know with certainty that's not what's
seemingly happening "here" apart from a vinyl record
sort of skipping/repeating that this is a special case,
and the others are "merely" dreams? Because that sense
of "special case" i.e. "this is *REALLY* happening" -
is present in dreams as well.

Oh that's easy. The external world is my default case, and based on
everything I have seen, read and done, the evidence seems to be
overwhelmingly in favour of the external world.

So anyone disagreeing with me, has the burden of proof. And likewise, no
one has ever managed to prove to me anything else besides the real
world, or falsified the real world for me.

Post by oldernow

Post by D
If he believes that everything is just himself, that would
be a collapse into solipsism, and ultimate doubt.

You say that like it's a bad thing ("collapse"), something
to be avoided, etc.

Yes... it is not a very productive framework if you take it seriously,
because all ethics, motivation and will disappear if you take it
seriously.

If you act, to all purposes as if an external world existed, and if that
world acts on you as if it existed, but you still say you are a
solipsist, I do not think your behaviour is aligned with your belief,
and that deep down, you are a believer in the world until your acts
start to align more with your mind being the only thing that does exist.

Post by oldernow
Could a purely conceived being possibly conceive of its
purely conceptual underpinnings? And isn't using words by
definition and attempt to conceive?

Could you rephrase that?

Post by oldernow

Post by D
Note that with that position, the only thing you could
ever trust is the present moment. You also could not trust
your identity. However, what you would have to acknowledge,
regardless of illusion, is that for any eventual illusion
to take place, some kind of processing need to take place
in some kind of medium over time. That would imply an
external world.

It could also imply imagining an external world and
blessing that world with non-merely-imagined-hood.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Post by oldernow
Isn't taking that world to be external-to/apart-from a
modeler the worst possible model for a modeler? Sounds
like a guaranteed recipe for alone-liness, and subsequent
flavors of anguish rooted in alone-liness.

I have plenty of friends... hmm, perhaps not plenty, I tend to go for
quality over quantity, so I am not alone in the external world, but feel
quite alright. =)

There are of course people who do feel depressed, but that can be fixed
in many cases! =)

Even from a physical and external point of view, we are all closely
related to eacher other and to the entire universe, through the elements
of our bodies. We are closely related to all life, through the tree of
life, and on a more ethereal level, even our thoughts, acts, financial
dealings, create a "web" of life where we live on forever coded as the
results of our actions.

So in my opinion, even _if_ the external world is, there are plenty of
proof that we are not alone, we are on the contrary, swimming in
relationships and kinships!

Post by oldernow
And don't individuals mentally perform that "imagine and
declare the reality - and details thereof - of that which
is imagined" operation incessantly? Perhaps incessantly
enough to generate a damned convincing "world" containing
that individual?

Perhaps.

P.S. It is now 30 degrees at night, so any errors or confusion is blamed
on Joe Biden! ;)

P.P.S. I don't think you will bite. ;)

P.P.P.S. But maybe someone else will?

[x]

Post by D

Post by oldernow

Post by D

Post by oldernow
Assuming you meant the symbol 'external' by the symbol

Yes! =) I blame the wife for talking to me when writing. ;)

How dare you not recognize her angelic intent in helping
you transcend external unto eternal! :-)

Apologies! I thought that's what they were for? ;)

Post by oldernow

Post by D
I think an easier theory is that the rock hurts and the
external world exists. ;)

I think an even easier theory is that all that seems
to be is mind only, but some of it considered (again,
another mental operation) external, real, etc.

That seems to me to be easier just as it is easier to say that god
created everything, instead of using science. It is an easier statement,
but proving the statement, explaining how it came into being, how it
fits into science, the material world, and how all that is illusion,
sounds to me to be vastly more complicated as a theory, than accepting
the physical world and our current best scientific explanation.
After all, what's the point of discussion, if there is no one to discuss
with?
And ethics falls, and meaning too. But, a solipsist position is
impossible to disprove, even though I argue, that the burden of proof
lies on the solipsist to disprove the world, rather than for the world
to disprove the solipsist.

Everyone has different meanings of proof and disproof.

Does the word 'proof' have meaning?

In theory, one could quote a bunch of philosophic
'proofs' and 'disproofs', but is there really
agreement even among philosophers that they are
actually valid or invalid?

Post by D

Post by oldernow
That seems even more inclusive than your external
world theory, because the mind only theory accounts
for all phenomena, including mind (sure, that leads to
self-referentiality looping).. but the "external world"
theory can't seem to explain - i.e. account for - the
likes of mind, beings, self, etc.

But it does. We know perfectly well where we come from, how parts of
minds works, etc. But here's the beauty, we definitely do _not_
understand everything. But as far as I can tell, the physical world is
pretty well proven, especially on pragmatic grounds.
If you act, as if the world exist, and if the world acts as if it did
have external existence, there's really no point in adding the "mind"
aspect to it at all, that explains nothing, and adds nothing to the theory.

Post by oldernow

Post by D
I refer to G.E. Moores "here is a hand" proof. Silly on
the surface, but very profound if you think about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand

But that Wikipedia entry doesn't even mention an
observer in its summary at the top, which seems a
necessary component of "knowing" (is there knowing
without a knower?) a hand or two.. and yet trying

Oh, it is taking from a lecture and a paper. The observer is everyone in
the room, including the philosopher himself.

Post by oldernow
to find that observer leads to nothing but a set of
thoughts/concepts seemingly repeated to itself. In
other words, said observer doesn't consist of anything
observable/conceivable/nameable.

I disgaree. I just performed the experiment with my wife and everyone
passed with flying colors! =) She was extremely convinced about the
external world.

Post by oldernow
If the observer is that flimsy a "reality", what about
the solidity of whatever it tells itself it observes?

You lost me there.

Post by oldernow
And don't forget that words imply an objective/external
reality. In fact, the degree of seeming real-ness seems
proportional to the frequency and intensity with which
the words are repeated.

Haha... perhaps. To me the intensity of seeming real-ness increases the
more I try to break the laws of physics. It tends to hurt! No words
necessary. ;)

Post by oldernow
Given that, the more we discuss, the more real/external
the world will seem *unless/until* a phrase or
passage or two/more triggers the all-important
word/concept/representation -less "insperience" that flies
below the representational plane, so to speak....
Where is the world in absence of a mind to know it -
aka insist it be so and thus?

Just where it is. If we're talking about your absent mind (be that
heaven, death or transcendence) the world is not from your point of
view, which does no longer exist. But from the point of views of other
people, the world still exists. And should no one exist, the world still
exist as a bunch of atoms.

Post by oldernow

Post by D

Post by oldernow

Post by D
3. Even if they do not believe in the world and facts,
they still seem pretty intent on arguing their point with
other people, even though there is no point to argue. ;)

Could it be they're fascinated by doing so seeming to
provoke the kind of post this one is in reply to, and they
so love typing that of course they're going to create as
many opportunities to type as they possibly can?

But that would imply an external world, or if not, the
person would enjoy talking to himself.

But such "happens" in dreams too. Is a given dream's world
external? The self/observer therein surely thinks it is,
and yet all of a sudden POOF! both that world and that
self are gone upon "awakening".

Yes, and I think the key here is that you wake up. We also know
perfectly well what dreams are, what they look like when we observe the
brain and so on, so nothing mystical going on there. Based on that,
dreams are also a physical phenomenon, ultimately grounded in... the
external world. ;)

Post by oldernow
Hmmm... how do you know with certainty that's not what's
seemingly happening "here" apart from a vinyl record
sort of skipping/repeating that this is a special case,
and the others are "merely" dreams? Because that sense
of "special case" i.e. "this is *REALLY* happening" -
is present in dreams as well.

Oh that's easy. The external world is my default case, and based on
everything I have seen, read and done, the evidence seems to be
overwhelmingly in favour of the external world.
So anyone disagreeing with me, has the burden of proof. And likewise, no
one has ever managed to prove to me anything else besides the real
world, or falsified the real world for me.

Post by oldernow

Post by D
If he believes that everything is just himself, that would
be a collapse into solipsism, and ultimate doubt.

You say that like it's a bad thing ("collapse"), something
to be avoided, etc.

Yes... it is not a very productive framework if you take it seriously,
because all ethics, motivation and will disappear if you take it
seriously.
If you act, to all purposes as if an external world existed, and if that
world acts on you as if it existed, but you still say you are a
solipsist, I do not think your behaviour is aligned with your belief,
and that deep down, you are a believer in the world until your acts
start to align more with your mind being the only thing that does exist.

Post by oldernow
Could a purely conceived being possibly conceive of its
purely conceptual underpinnings? And isn't using words by
definition and attempt to conceive?

Could you rephrase that?

Post by oldernow

Post by D
Note that with that position, the only thing you could
ever trust is the present moment.  You also could not trust
your identity. However, what you would have to acknowledge,
regardless of illusion, is that for any eventual illusion
to take place, some kind of processing need to take place
in some kind of medium over time. That would imply an
external world.

It could also imply imagining an external world and
blessing that world with non-merely-imagined-hood.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Post by oldernow
Isn't taking that world to be external-to/apart-from a
modeler the worst possible model for a modeler? Sounds
like a guaranteed recipe for alone-liness, and subsequent
flavors of anguish rooted in alone-liness.

I have plenty of friends... hmm, perhaps not plenty, I tend to go for
quality over quantity, so I am not alone in the external world, but feel
quite alright. =)
There are of course people who do feel depressed, but that can be fixed
in many cases! =)
Even from a physical and external point of view, we are all closely
related to eacher other and to the entire universe, through the elements
of our bodies. We are closely related to all life, through the tree of
life, and on a more ethereal level, even our thoughts, acts, financial
dealings, create a "web" of life where we live on forever coded as the
results of our actions.
So in my opinion, even _if_ the external world is, there are plenty of
proof that we are not alone, we are on the contrary, swimming in
relationships and kinships!

Post by oldernow
And don't individuals mentally perform that "imagine and
declare the reality - and details thereof - of that which
is imagined" operation incessantly? Perhaps incessantly
enough to generate a damned convincing "world" containing
that individual?

Perhaps.
P.S. It is now 30 degrees at night, so any errors or confusion is blamed
on Joe Biden! ;)
P.P.S. I don't think you will bite. ;)
P.P.P.S. But maybe someone else will?

[D]

Post by x

Post by D
And ethics falls, and meaning too. But, a solipsist position is
impossible to disprove, even though I argue, that the burden of proof
lies on the solipsist to disprove the world, rather than for the world
to disprove the solipsist.

Everyone has different meanings of proof and disproof.
Does the word 'proof' have meaning?

For me, I think we can go with the scientific meaning of proof.

Post by x
In theory, one could quote a bunch of philosophic
'proofs' and 'disproofs', but is there really
agreement even among philosophers that they are
actually valid or invalid?

In terms of proof, mathematical/logical proof and scientific criterias
for proof are pretty undisputed.

[x]

Post by D

Post by x

Post by D
And ethics falls, and meaning too. But, a solipsist position is
impossible to disprove, even though I argue, that the burden of proof
lies on the solipsist to disprove the world, rather than for the world
to disprove the solipsist.

Everyone has different meanings of proof and disproof.
Does the word 'proof' have meaning?

For me, I think we can go with the scientific meaning of proof.

Post by x
In theory, one could quote a bunch of philosophic
'proofs' and 'disproofs', but is there really
agreement even among philosophers that they are
actually valid or invalid?

In terms of proof, mathematical/logical proof and scientific criterias
for proof are pretty undisputed.

I am thinking most physical laws are routinely disproven.

When it happens the words 'the law is a simplification'
or 'chaos' is used.

The reality however is that most people are trained
to reject the physical world or empiricism that way.

They become 'undisputed' because they are worshiped,
but they end up rejecting physics that way.

If you did not worship them, then you would notice
that they are violated all the time, and the words
'simplification' and 'chaos' are constantly used to
weasel out of seeing the actual observed world.

'Physical laws' are a belief system bolstered by
people claiming that they are never 'violated'.
But when people actually see objects falling in
non-simple, not easily predicted paths, then
they use words like 'chaos' or 'simplification'
to fit actual observations. They BELIEVE they
can never be violated, so they actually gradually
are trained to reject observations. They make
sure the words 'violated' are never used, and of
course teachers give low grades, and so students
will lie to get higher grades.

You are envious of this belief, and so you try
to use it to take advantage of it in your
arguments.

Nonetheless they always use the words 'chaos',
'simplification', and never use the words
'violated' to fit the data. It is a very
subtle way of bolstering belief.

[x]

Post by D

Post by oldernow

Post by D

Post by oldernow
Assuming you meant the symbol 'external' by the symbol

Yes! =) I blame the wife for talking to me when writing. ;)

How dare you not recognize her angelic intent in helping
you transcend external unto eternal! :-)

Apologies! I thought that's what they were for? ;)

Post by oldernow

Post by D
I think an easier theory is that the rock hurts and the
external world exists. ;)

I think an even easier theory is that all that seems
to be is mind only, but some of it considered (again,
another mental operation) external, real, etc.

That seems to me to be easier just as it is easier to say that god
created everything, instead of using science. It is an easier statement,
but proving the statement, explaining how it came into being, how it
fits into science, the material world, and how all that is illusion,
sounds to me to be vastly more complicated as a theory, than accepting
the physical world and our current best scientific explanation.
After all, what's the point of discussion, if there is no one to discuss
with?
And ethics falls, and meaning too. But, a solipsist position is
impossible to disprove, even though I argue, that the burden of proof
lies on the solipsist to disprove the world, rather than for the world
to disprove the solipsist.

Post by oldernow
That seems even more inclusive than your external
world theory, because the mind only theory accounts
for all phenomena, including mind (sure, that leads to
self-referentiality looping).. but the "external world"
theory can't seem to explain - i.e. account for - the
likes of mind, beings, self, etc.

But it does. We know perfectly well where we come from, how parts of
minds works, etc. But here's the beauty, we definitely do _not_
understand everything. But as far as I can tell, the physical world is
pretty well proven, especially on pragmatic grounds.
If you act, as if the world exist, and if the world acts as if it did
have external existence, there's really no point in adding the "mind"
aspect to it at all, that explains nothing, and adds nothing to the theory.

Post by oldernow

Post by D
I refer to G.E. Moores "here is a hand" proof. Silly on
the surface, but very profound if you think about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand

But that Wikipedia entry doesn't even mention an
observer in its summary at the top, which seems a
necessary component of "knowing" (is there knowing
without a knower?) a hand or two.. and yet trying

Oh, it is taking from a lecture and a paper. The observer is everyone in
the room, including the philosopher himself.

Post by oldernow
to find that observer leads to nothing but a set of
thoughts/concepts seemingly repeated to itself. In
other words, said observer doesn't consist of anything
observable/conceivable/nameable.

I disgaree. I just performed the experiment with my wife and everyone
passed with flying colors! =) She was extremely convinced about the
external world.

Post by oldernow
If the observer is that flimsy a "reality", what about
the solidity of whatever it tells itself it observes?

You lost me there.

Post by oldernow
And don't forget that words imply an objective/external
reality. In fact, the degree of seeming real-ness seems
proportional to the frequency and intensity with which
the words are repeated.

Haha... perhaps. To me the intensity of seeming real-ness increases the
more I try to break the laws of physics. It tends to hurt! No words
necessary. ;)

Hmm.

I remember reading Montesquieu where he wrote that there
are 'laws of god, laws of man, and laws of nature'.

Can you prove that the 'laws of physics' exist?

If you start generalizing about the movement of physical
bodies, is it feasible that you cease to be concrete in
your observations? The second that you try to reduce them
to 'laws', they cease to be real because you are no longer
actually observing the physical world.

How may objects that you observe in reality actually follow
the paths of nice simple equations? In reality, if you drop
an object, it tends to be irregularly shaped. That makes impart
a more random force when it drops to the ground, making it
careen off in less predictable directions.

What about a bird when it flies in the air? Is it obeying a
nice simple equation? Or is it moving its wings based upon
what it sees or hears and its volition? If the latter, is
it actually not obeying simple 'physical laws'? Are you
rejecting reality by claiming that 'physical laws' exist?

Post by D

Post by oldernow
Given that, the more we discuss, the more real/external
the world will seem *unless/until* a phrase or
passage or two/more triggers the all-important
word/concept/representation -less "insperience" that flies
below the representational plane, so to speak....
Where is the world in absence of a mind to know it -
aka insist it be so and thus?

Just where it is. If we're talking about your absent mind (be that
heaven, death or transcendence) the world is not from your point of
view, which does no longer exist. But from the point of views of other
people, the world still exists. And should no one exist, the world still
exist as a bunch of atoms.

Post by oldernow

Post by D

Post by oldernow

Post by D
3. Even if they do not believe in the world and facts,
they still seem pretty intent on arguing their point with
other people, even though there is no point to argue. ;)

Could it be they're fascinated by doing so seeming to
provoke the kind of post this one is in reply to, and they
so love typing that of course they're going to create as
many opportunities to type as they possibly can?

But that would imply an external world, or if not, the
person would enjoy talking to himself.

But such "happens" in dreams too. Is a given dream's world
external? The self/observer therein surely thinks it is,
and yet all of a sudden POOF! both that world and that
self are gone upon "awakening".

Yes, and I think the key here is that you wake up. We also know
perfectly well what dreams are, what they look like when we observe the
brain and so on, so nothing mystical going on there. Based on that,
dreams are also a physical phenomenon, ultimately grounded in... the
external world. ;)

Post by oldernow
Hmmm... how do you know with certainty that's not what's
seemingly happening "here" apart from a vinyl record
sort of skipping/repeating that this is a special case,
and the others are "merely" dreams? Because that sense
of "special case" i.e. "this is *REALLY* happening" -
is present in dreams as well.

Oh that's easy. The external world is my default case, and based on
everything I have seen, read and done, the evidence seems to be
overwhelmingly in favour of the external world.
So anyone disagreeing with me, has the burden of proof. And likewise, no
one has ever managed to prove to me anything else besides the real
world, or falsified the real world for me.

Post by oldernow

Post by D
If he believes that everything is just himself, that would
be a collapse into solipsism, and ultimate doubt.

You say that like it's a bad thing ("collapse"), something
to be avoided, etc.

Yes... it is not a very productive framework if you take it seriously,
because all ethics, motivation and will disappear if you take it
seriously.
If you act, to all purposes as if an external world existed, and if that
world acts on you as if it existed, but you still say you are a
solipsist, I do not think your behaviour is aligned with your belief,
and that deep down, you are a believer in the world until your acts
start to align more with your mind being the only thing that does exist.

Post by oldernow
Could a purely conceived being possibly conceive of its
purely conceptual underpinnings? And isn't using words by
definition and attempt to conceive?

Could you rephrase that?

Post by oldernow

Post by D
Note that with that position, the only thing you could
ever trust is the present moment.  You also could not trust
your identity. However, what you would have to acknowledge,
regardless of illusion, is that for any eventual illusion
to take place, some kind of processing need to take place
in some kind of medium over time. That would imply an
external world.

It could also imply imagining an external world and
blessing that world with non-merely-imagined-hood.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Post by oldernow
Isn't taking that world to be external-to/apart-from a
modeler the worst possible model for a modeler? Sounds
like a guaranteed recipe for alone-liness, and subsequent
flavors of anguish rooted in alone-liness.

I have plenty of friends... hmm, perhaps not plenty, I tend to go for
quality over quantity, so I am not alone in the external world, but feel
quite alright. =)
There are of course people who do feel depressed, but that can be fixed
in many cases! =)
Even from a physical and external point of view, we are all closely
related to eacher other and to the entire universe, through the elements
of our bodies. We are closely related to all life, through the tree of
life, and on a more ethereal level, even our thoughts, acts, financial
dealings, create a "web" of life where we live on forever coded as the
results of our actions.
So in my opinion, even _if_ the external world is, there are plenty of
proof that we are not alone, we are on the contrary, swimming in
relationships and kinships!

Post by oldernow
And don't individuals mentally perform that "imagine and
declare the reality - and details thereof - of that which
is imagined" operation incessantly? Perhaps incessantly
enough to generate a damned convincing "world" containing
that individual?

Perhaps.
P.S. It is now 30 degrees at night, so any errors or confusion is blamed
on Joe Biden! ;)
P.P.S. I don't think you will bite. ;)
P.P.P.S. But maybe someone else will?

[D]

Post by x

Post by D

Post by oldernow
And don't forget that words imply an objective/external
reality. In fact, the degree of seeming real-ness seems
proportional to the frequency and intensity with which
the words are repeated.

Haha... perhaps. To me the intensity of seeming real-ness increases the
more I try to break the laws of physics. It tends to hurt! No words
necessary. ;)

Hmm.
I remember reading Montesquieu where he wrote that there
are 'laws of god, laws of man, and laws of nature'.
Can you prove that the 'laws of physics' exist?

In physics, laws are not proven in the same way mathematical theorems
are proven. Laws of physics are fundamental principles that describe the
behavior of the physical universe based on repeated observations and
experiments. These laws serve as the foundation for constructing
theories and mathematical models to explain natural phenomena. The
process of establishing laws involves a combination of empirical
evidence, theoretical frameworks, and experimental validation.

Experimental Validation of Laws:

Laws in physics are derived from experimental observations and
measurements. Through controlled experiments, scientists gather data
to test hypotheses and theories. The validity of a law is assessed
through experimentation that replicates and verifies the predicted
outcomes based on that law. The number of times an experiment needs
to be conducted to establish a law depends on various factors such
as the complexity of the phenomenon, the precision of measurements,
and statistical significance.

Proving Laws Through Experimentation:

While laws cannot be definitively proven, they can be supported by
consistent experimental results. Repeated experiments that confirm
the predictions based on a law increase confidence in its validity.
Scientists aim to replicate experiments under different conditions
to ensure that the law holds across various scenarios. The
sufficiency of experimental validation is determined by statistical
analysis, peer review, reproducibility, and agreement with
theoretical frameworks.

Proving the Second Law of Thermodynamics:

The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy tends to
increase over time in isolated systems. This law is based on
empirical observations and statistical mechanics. Experimental
validation of this law involves studying heat transfer, energy
transformations, and system behavior to confirm that entropy
increases in real-world scenarios. By conducting experiments that
demonstrate entropy changes in different systems and processes,
scientists can provide empirical support for the second law of
thermodynamics.

In summary, while laws of physics are not proven in an absolute sense
like mathematical proofs, they are validated through rigorous
experimentation, observation, and theoretical consistency.

Post by x
If you start generalizing about the movement of physical
bodies, is it feasible that you cease to be concrete in
your observations? The second that you try to reduce them
to 'laws', they cease to be real because you are no longer
actually observing the physical world.
How may objects that you observe in reality actually follow
the paths of nice simple equations? In reality, if you drop
an object, it tends to be irregularly shaped. That makes impart
a more random force when it drops to the ground, making it
careen off in less predictable directions.
What about a bird when it flies in the air? Is it obeying a
nice simple equation? Or is it moving its wings based upon
what it sees or hears and its volition? If the latter, is
it actually not obeying simple 'physical laws'? Are you
rejecting reality by claiming that 'physical laws' exist?

[x]

Post by D

Post by x

Post by D

Post by oldernow
And don't forget that words imply an objective/external
reality. In fact, the degree of seeming real-ness seems
proportional to the frequency and intensity with which
the words are repeated.

Haha... perhaps. To me the intensity of seeming real-ness increases the
more I try to break the laws of physics. It tends to hurt! No words
necessary. ;)

Hmm.
I remember reading Montesquieu where he wrote that there
are 'laws of god, laws of man, and laws of nature'.
Can you prove that the 'laws of physics' exist?

In physics, laws are not proven in the same way mathematical theorems
are proven. Laws of physics are fundamental principles that describe the
behavior of the physical universe based on repeated observations and
experiments. These laws serve as the foundation for constructing
theories and mathematical models to explain natural phenomena. The
process of establishing laws involves a combination of empirical
evidence, theoretical frameworks, and experimental validation.
    Laws in physics are derived from experimental observations and
    measurements. Through controlled experiments, scientists gather data
    to test hypotheses and theories.  The validity of a law is assessed
    through experimentation that replicates and verifies the predicted
    outcomes based on that law.  The number of times an experiment needs
    to be conducted to establish a law depends on various factors such
    as the complexity of the phenomenon, the precision of measurements,
    and statistical significance.
    While laws cannot be definitively proven, they can be supported by
    consistent experimental results. Repeated experiments that confirm
    the predictions based on a law increase confidence in its validity.
    Scientists aim to replicate experiments under different conditions
    to ensure that the law holds across various scenarios.  The
    sufficiency of experimental validation is determined by statistical
    analysis, peer review, reproducibility, and agreement with
    theoretical frameworks.
    The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy tends to
    increase over time in isolated systems. This law is based on
    empirical observations and statistical mechanics.  Experimental
    validation of this law involves studying heat transfer, energy
    transformations, and system behavior to confirm that entropy
    increases in real-world scenarios.  By conducting experiments that
    demonstrate entropy changes in different systems and processes,
    scientists can provide empirical support for the second law of
    thermodynamics.
In summary, while laws of physics are not proven in an absolute sense
like mathematical proofs, they are validated through rigorous
experimentation, observation, and theoretical consistency.

Yea there is a lot of belief system embedded in the esoteric
faiths of modern science.

Your first sentence proves and agrees with my point.

'While laws cannot be definitively proven'.

I will go with that.

Of course everyone has different ideas about what proof is,
so maybe not.

Post by D

Post by x
If you start generalizing about the movement of physical
bodies, is it feasible that you cease to be concrete in
your observations?  The second that you try to reduce them
to 'laws', they cease to be real because you are no longer
actually observing the physical world.
How may objects that you observe in reality actually follow
the paths of nice simple equations?  In reality, if you drop
an object, it tends to be irregularly shaped.  That makes impart
a more random force when it drops to the ground, making it
careen off in less predictable directions.
What about a bird when it flies in the air?  Is it obeying a
nice simple equation?  Or is it moving its wings based upon
what it sees or hears and its volition?  If the latter, is
it actually not obeying simple 'physical laws'?  Are you
rejecting reality by claiming that 'physical laws' exist?

[D]

Post by x

Post by D

Post by x

Post by D

Post by oldernow
And don't forget that words imply an objective/external
reality. In fact, the degree of seeming real-ness seems
proportional to the frequency and intensity with which
the words are repeated.

Haha... perhaps. To me the intensity of seeming real-ness increases the
more I try to break the laws of physics. It tends to hurt! No words
necessary. ;)

Hmm.
I remember reading Montesquieu where he wrote that there
are 'laws of god, laws of man, and laws of nature'.
Can you prove that the 'laws of physics' exist?

In physics, laws are not proven in the same way mathematical theorems
are proven. Laws of physics are fundamental principles that describe the
behavior of the physical universe based on repeated observations and
experiments. These laws serve as the foundation for constructing
theories and mathematical models to explain natural phenomena. The
process of establishing laws involves a combination of empirical
evidence, theoretical frameworks, and experimental validation.
    Laws in physics are derived from experimental observations and
    measurements. Through controlled experiments, scientists gather data
    to test hypotheses and theories.  The validity of a law is assessed
    through experimentation that replicates and verifies the predicted
    outcomes based on that law.  The number of times an experiment needs
    to be conducted to establish a law depends on various factors such
    as the complexity of the phenomenon, the precision of measurements,
    and statistical significance.
    While laws cannot be definitively proven, they can be supported by
    consistent experimental results. Repeated experiments that confirm
    the predictions based on a law increase confidence in its validity.
    Scientists aim to replicate experiments under different conditions
    to ensure that the law holds across various scenarios.  The
    sufficiency of experimental validation is determined by statistical
    analysis, peer review, reproducibility, and agreement with
    theoretical frameworks.
    The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy tends to
    increase over time in isolated systems. This law is based on
    empirical observations and statistical mechanics.  Experimental
    validation of this law involves studying heat transfer, energy
    transformations, and system behavior to confirm that entropy
    increases in real-world scenarios.  By conducting experiments that
    demonstrate entropy changes in different systems and processes,
    scientists can provide empirical support for the second law of
    thermodynamics.
In summary, while laws of physics are not proven in an absolute sense
like mathematical proofs, they are validated through rigorous
experimentation, observation, and theoretical consistency.

Yea there is a lot of belief system embedded in the esoteric
faiths of modern science.

Science is a method not a faith.

Post by x
Your first sentence proves and agrees with my point.

You need to consider the text as a whole, not pick one sentence.

Post by x
'While laws cannot be definitively proven'.
I will go with that.

Note the world definitely. If you do not believe the law of gravity to be
proven, why don't you jump off a building? Or is your "faith" weak?

Post by x
Of course everyone has different ideas about what proof is,
so maybe not.

Actually no. If you read what is written, you can deduce that proof is
trivial and is part of why science has propeled civilization to its
current peak.

Post by x

Post by D

Post by x
If you start generalizing about the movement of physical
bodies, is it feasible that you cease to be concrete in
your observations?  The second that you try to reduce them
to 'laws', they cease to be real because you are no longer
actually observing the physical world.
How may objects that you observe in reality actually follow
the paths of nice simple equations?  In reality, if you drop
an object, it tends to be irregularly shaped.  That makes impart
a more random force when it drops to the ground, making it
careen off in less predictable directions.
What about a bird when it flies in the air?  Is it obeying a
nice simple equation?  Or is it moving its wings based upon
what it sees or hears and its volition?  If the latter, is
it actually not obeying simple 'physical laws'?  Are you
rejecting reality by claiming that 'physical laws' exist?

[x]

Post by D

Post by x

Post by D

Post by x

Post by D

Post by oldernow
And don't forget that words imply an objective/external
reality. In fact, the degree of seeming real-ness seems
proportional to the frequency and intensity with which
the words are repeated.

Haha... perhaps. To me the intensity of seeming real-ness increases the
more I try to break the laws of physics. It tends to hurt! No words
necessary. ;)

Hmm.
I remember reading Montesquieu where he wrote that there
are 'laws of god, laws of man, and laws of nature'.
Can you prove that the 'laws of physics' exist?

In physics, laws are not proven in the same way mathematical theorems
are proven. Laws of physics are fundamental principles that describe the
behavior of the physical universe based on repeated observations and
experiments. These laws serve as the foundation for constructing
theories and mathematical models to explain natural phenomena. The
process of establishing laws involves a combination of empirical
evidence, theoretical frameworks, and experimental validation.
     Laws in physics are derived from experimental observations and
     measurements. Through controlled experiments, scientists gather
data
     to test hypotheses and theories.  The validity of a law is assessed
     through experimentation that replicates and verifies the predicted
     outcomes based on that law.  The number of times an experiment
needs
     to be conducted to establish a law depends on various factors such
     as the complexity of the phenomenon, the precision of measurements,
     and statistical significance.
     While laws cannot be definitively proven, they can be supported by
     consistent experimental results. Repeated experiments that confirm
     the predictions based on a law increase confidence in its validity.
     Scientists aim to replicate experiments under different conditions
     to ensure that the law holds across various scenarios.  The
     sufficiency of experimental validation is determined by statistical
     analysis, peer review, reproducibility, and agreement with
     theoretical frameworks.
     The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy tends to
     increase over time in isolated systems. This law is based on
     empirical observations and statistical mechanics.  Experimental
     validation of this law involves studying heat transfer, energy
     transformations, and system behavior to confirm that entropy
     increases in real-world scenarios.  By conducting experiments that
     demonstrate entropy changes in different systems and processes,
     scientists can provide empirical support for the second law of
     thermodynamics.
In summary, while laws of physics are not proven in an absolute sense
like mathematical proofs, they are validated through rigorous
experimentation, observation, and theoretical consistency.

Yea there is a lot of belief system embedded in the esoteric
faiths of modern science.

Science is a method not a faith.

Faith of course enables people to continue to believe
in what is true when confronted with lies.

There is much false science that is generally somewhat
belief.

Post by D

Post by x
Your first sentence proves and agrees with my point.

You need to consider the text as a whole, not pick one sentence.

But much reasoning does derive from one one set of arguments
to another, and much false reasoning tends to start with
weak arguments, and then throw in thousands or words later
to 'prove' their weak arguments. If you consider many
texts as a whole, they use non-arguments to try to
prove weak arguments by filling in a vast number of
words and then claim that they 'prove' something. Much
text as a whole, is just gibberish fill without true meaning.

Post by D

Post by x
'While laws cannot be definitively proven'.
I will go with that.

Note the world definitely. If you do not believe the law of gravity to
be proven, why don't you jump off a building? Or is your "faith" weak?

Birds jump off buildings in order to fly. You are picking
and choosing what you think 'disproves' gravity.

Post by D

Post by x
Of course everyone has different ideas about what proof is,
so maybe not.

Actually no. If you read what is written, you can deduce that proof is
trivial and is part of why science has propeled civilization to its
current peak.

'Peak'? There is a lot of bias in that one.

Post by D

Post by x

Post by D

Post by x
If you start generalizing about the movement of physical
bodies, is it feasible that you cease to be concrete in
your observations?  The second that you try to reduce them
to 'laws', they cease to be real because you are no longer
actually observing the physical world.
How may objects that you observe in reality actually follow
the paths of nice simple equations?  In reality, if you drop
an object, it tends to be irregularly shaped.  That makes impart
a more random force when it drops to the ground, making it
careen off in less predictable directions.
What about a bird when it flies in the air?  Is it obeying a
nice simple equation?  Or is it moving its wings based upon
what it sees or hears and its volition?  If the latter, is
it actually not obeying simple 'physical laws'?  Are you
rejecting reality by claiming that 'physical laws' exist?

It is of course more difficult to disprove the existence of
natural law in the present age. It is generally the flavor
of the modern belief systems. Ignore birds and it is
difficult to disprove gravity. People pick and choose
what they want to believe in.

[oldernow]

Post by D
After all, what's the point of discussion, if there is no
one to discuss with?

Why does there need to be a point to discussion?

Post by D
And ethics falls, and meaning too. But, a solipsist
position is impossible to disprove, even though I argue,
that the burden of proof lies on the solipsist to disprove
the world, rather than for the world to disprove the
solipsist.

To me it looks like the burden lies with those who feel
the burden of there needing to be a burden: the rest of
us are fat, dumb, and illusory. ;-)

Post by D
But here's the beauty, we definitely do _not_ understand
everything. But as far as I can tell, the physical world
is pretty well proven, especially on pragmatic grounds.

"is pretty well proven" -> "is believed in, and therein
declared by some believers thereof to be 'proven'"

Post by D
If you act, as if the world exist, and if the world acts as
if it did have external existence,

Then... it's a... a... dream? Because that scenario is
seemingly present in dreams.

Post by D
there's really no point in adding the "mind" aspect to
it at all, that explains nothing, and adds nothing to
the theory.

"Mind only" covers the whole shebang, including itself.

Post by D

Post by oldernow
If the observer is that flimsy a "reality", what about
the solidity of whatever it tells itself it observes?

You lost me there.

How could an observer whose essence can't be found in
space/time have an authoritative view on space/time
phenomena?

Observer/observation/observed: a representational dream
defined along word boundaries.

Post by D
Just where it is. If we're talking about your absent mind
(be that heaven, death or transcendence) the world is not
from your point of view, which does no longer exist. But
from the point of views of other people, the world still
exists. And should no one exist, the world still exist as
a bunch of atoms.

But I thought modern physics hasn't believed in the
*existence* of atoms for quite some time, so what kind of
existence does this "world" you speak of have if it depends
on non-existent particle clusterings called "atoms"?

Post by D
Yes, and I think the key here is that you wake up. We
also know perfectly well what dreams are, what they look
like when we observe the brain and so on, so nothing
mystical going on there. Based on that, dreams are also a
physical phenomenon, ultimately grounded in... the external
world. ;)

And the external world is grounded in "atoms" that have
never been observed, and are quite possibly/probably
no longer considered the rest modeling (i.e. no longer
believed in)....

Flimsy patterns of words chasing flimsy patterns of words'
tails!

Post by D
Oh that's easy. The external world is my default case,
and based on everything I have seen, read and done,
the evidence seems to be overwhelmingly in favour of the
external world.

The "evidence" is your own faith in it being thus. But
your own faith proves nothing to anyone else, regardless
the amounts/arrangements of words used to pretend there's
something more to it than faith.

Post by D

Post by oldernow

Post by D
If he believes that everything is just himself, that would
be a collapse into solipsism, and ultimate doubt.

You say that like it's a bad thing ("collapse"), something
to be avoided, etc.

Yes... it is not a very productive framework if you take
it seriously, because all ethics, motivation and will
disappear if you take it seriously.

And you know this from...? From having taken it
seriously? Or are you positing outcomes on taking it
seriously?

The "ethics" part is extra hilarious. It seems most people
believe the external world model you do, and ethics is all
but utterly absent in the midst of that mass hallucination.

How many prisons/laws/police/courts/armies/wars does it
take to see that?

Post by D
If you act, to all purposes as if an external world
existed, and if that world acts on you as if it existed,
but you still say you are a solipsist, I do not think your
behaviour is aligned with your belief, and that deep down,
you are a believer in the world until your acts start
to align more with your mind being the only thing that
does exist.

Not even the "you" to have a "mind"! The 'you' and 'mind'
are representations as well.

Post by D

Post by oldernow
Could a purely conceived being possibly conceive of its
purely conceptual underpinnings? And isn't using words by
definition and attempt to conceive?

Could you rephrase that?

I could!

Post by D

Post by oldernow
It could also imply imagining an external world and
blessing that world with non-merely-imagined-hood.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Ducks walking and quacking like ducks seemingly happens
in body-said-to-be-asleep dreams, including this one some
believe/say/declare isn't "merely" a dream.

Post by D
So in my opinion, even _if_ the external world is, there
are plenty of proof that we are not alone, we are on the
contrary, swimming in relationships and kinships!

What you're calling "proof", I'm calling "representational
belief/faith", is all....

Post by D
P.S. It is now 30 degrees at night, so any errors or
confusion is blamed on Joe Biden! ;)
P.P.S. I don't think you will bite. ;)
P.P.P.S. But maybe someone else will?

Biden has seemed an unethical (despite no doubt believing
in an "external world"...) peace of shit ever since I
can remember being aware of him as a politician. But, you
know: "seemed", which implies a belief stack/context, and
clearly others seemed to operate in completely different
stacks/contexts.

Does that count as a "bite"?

[D]

Apologies for the delay! My mail/news client separate new posts from
unseen posts, and since this was filed as unseen and not new I missed
it. =( But now I know!

Post by oldernow

Post by D
After all, what's the point of discussion, if there is no
one to discuss with?

Why does there need to be a point to discussion?

Well, let me rephrase, why does there need to be a point to discussing
with someone else?

And also let me hasten to add, that entertainment and passing the time
are points.

Post by oldernow

Post by D
And ethics falls, and meaning too. But, a solipsist
position is impossible to disprove, even though I argue,
that the burden of proof lies on the solipsist to disprove
the world, rather than for the world to disprove the
solipsist.

To me it looks like the burden lies with those who feel
the burden of there needing to be a burden: the rest of
us are fat, dumb, and illusory. ;-)

;)

I think you should ditch philosophy and embrace the heavenly realm of
theology instead! ;)

Post by oldernow

Post by D
But here's the beauty, we definitely do _not_ understand
everything. But as far as I can tell, the physical world
is pretty well proven, especially on pragmatic grounds.

"is pretty well proven" -> "is believed in, and therein
declared by some believers thereof to be 'proven'"

Well, I provided you with proof in the form of G.E. Moore. I think we
are talking in circles, so I'll let the proof stand, with the added
point (which I think I mentioned previously as well) that there is no
escape from a solipsist and infinitely skeptical point of view, but that
point of view hsa yielded far less than science and materialism. But if
you doubt all, there is nothing anyone can say to convince you of
anything. =)

Post by oldernow

Post by D
If you act, as if the world exist, and if the world acts as
if it did have external existence,

Then... it's a... a... dream? Because that scenario is
seemingly present in dreams.

Post by D
there's really no point in adding the "mind" aspect to
it at all, that explains nothing, and adds nothing to
the theory.

"Mind only" covers the whole shebang, including itself.

What does that mean? The way I see it, mind is created on top of a world
and material substratum. First world, then mind.

Post by oldernow

Post by D

Post by oldernow
If the observer is that flimsy a "reality", what about
the solidity of whatever it tells itself it observes?

You lost me there.

How could an observer whose essence can't be found in
space/time have an authoritative view on space/time
phenomena?

Well, I believe the essence of the observer can be found in space/time,
and that we have science, books, experiments, which enable us to talk
very authoritatively about space/time.

Post by oldernow
Observer/observation/observed: a representational dream
defined along word boundaries.

Post by D
Just where it is. If we're talking about your absent mind
(be that heaven, death or transcendence) the world is not
from your point of view, which does no longer exist. But
from the point of views of other people, the world still
exists. And should no one exist, the world still exist as
a bunch of atoms.

But I thought modern physics hasn't believed in the
*existence* of atoms for quite some time, so what kind of
existence does this "world" you speak of have if it depends
on non-existent particle clusterings called "atoms"?

Ahh... but the fact that we do not yet know the ultimate subtratum and
the ultimate theory, does not invalidate the fact that we do know that
there is a table in front of us, and that gravity can kill.

The fact that we do not know everything, and that we are somtimes
honestly required to say that we don't know (yet) does not imply that we
should throw science out the window. If that were the case we would
still run around on the savannah.

Post by oldernow

Post by D
Yes, and I think the key here is that you wake up. We
also know perfectly well what dreams are, what they look
like when we observe the brain and so on, so nothing
mystical going on there. Based on that, dreams are also a
physical phenomenon, ultimately grounded in... the external
world. ;)

And the external world is grounded in "atoms" that have
never been observed, and are quite possibly/probably
no longer considered the rest modeling (i.e. no longer
believed in)....

Actually atoms have been observed.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/05/this-is-the-first-x-ray-taken-of-a-single-atom/

Post by oldernow
Flimsy patterns of words chasing flimsy patterns of words'
tails!

You theologist!! ;)

Post by oldernow

Post by D
Oh that's easy. The external world is my default case,
and based on everything I have seen, read and done,
the evidence seems to be overwhelmingly in favour of the
external world.

The "evidence" is your own faith in it being thus. But
your own faith proves nothing to anyone else, regardless
the amounts/arrangements of words used to pretend there's
something more to it than faith.

No, my evidence is based on what I see, repeatable experience and
experiment. If gravity is just faith, I'd expect the person to jump out
the window without harm. But somehow that never seems to happen. ;)

Post by oldernow

Post by D

Post by oldernow

Post by D
If he believes that everything is just himself, that would
be a collapse into solipsism, and ultimate doubt.

You say that like it's a bad thing ("collapse"), something
to be avoided, etc.

Yes... it is not a very productive framework if you take
it seriously, because all ethics, motivation and will
disappear if you take it seriously.

And you know this from...? From having taken it
seriously? Or are you positing outcomes on taking it
seriously?

I mean if there is no one but yourself, you can do anything to anyone,
since no innocent bystander is harmed.

Post by oldernow
The "ethics" part is extra hilarious. It seems most people
believe the external world model you do, and ethics is all
but utterly absent in the midst of that mass hallucination.

Not at all. There are plenty of ethical theories within a materialistic
view of reality. Let me propose contratarianism to give you just one
example.

Post by oldernow
How many prisons/laws/police/courts/armies/wars does it
take to see that?

Post by D
If you act, to all purposes as if an external world
existed, and if that world acts on you as if it existed,
but you still say you are a solipsist, I do not think your
behaviour is aligned with your belief, and that deep down,
you are a believer in the world until your acts start
to align more with your mind being the only thing that
does exist.

Not even the "you" to have a "mind"! The 'you' and 'mind'
are representations as well.

Now we are moving into the philosophy of identity.

Post by oldernow

Post by D

Post by oldernow
Could a purely conceived being possibly conceive of its
purely conceptual underpinnings? And isn't using words by
definition and attempt to conceive?

Could you rephrase that?

I could!

You're very, very kind! ;)

Post by oldernow

Post by D

Post by oldernow
It could also imply imagining an external world and
blessing that world with non-merely-imagined-hood.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Ducks walking and quacking like ducks seemingly happens
in body-said-to-be-asleep dreams, including this one some
believe/say/declare isn't "merely" a dream.

Until you wake up. Also note that no ducking and quacking takes place
in the dream, it is electrons moving around in your brain.

Post by oldernow

Post by D
So in my opinion, even _if_ the external world is, there
are plenty of proof that we are not alone, we are on the
contrary, swimming in relationships and kinships!

What you're calling "proof", I'm calling "representational
belief/faith", is all....

Well, I don't think I nor anyone else would be able to convince you
otherwise. I'll just enjoy my smug majority position (it is very rare
that I get to enjoy this ;) ).

Post by oldernow

Post by D
P.S. It is now 30 degrees at night, so any errors or
confusion is blamed on Joe Biden! ;)
P.P.S. I don't think you will bite. ;)
P.P.P.S. But maybe someone else will?

Biden has seemed an unethical (despite no doubt believing
in an "external world"...) peace of shit ever since I
can remember being aware of him as a politician. But, you
know: "seemed", which implies a belief stack/context, and
clearly others seemed to operate in completely different
stacks/contexts.
Does that count as a "bite"?

No, I think that is just called agreeing to agree! ;)

[oldernow]

Post by D
Apologies for the delay! My mail/news client separate new
posts from unseen posts, and since this was filed as unseen
and not new I missed it. =( But now I know!

A likely excuse! :P

Post by D

Post by oldernow
Why does there need to be a point to discussion?

Well, let me rephrase, why does there need to be a point
to discussing with someone else?

I find it much more pleasant without there being a point
to it.

Post by D
And also let me hasten to add, that entertainment and
passing the time are points.

There we go!

Post by D
I think you should ditch philosophy and embrace the
heavenly realm of theology instead! ;)

I prefer creating statements/response wherever I happen
to be.

I mean, I might think differently if everyone had the
same view of what 'philosophy' "is", or 'theology'
"is". Instead, it's quite easy to imagine finding a
"theology" space, and being told I should ditch it to
embrace some "philosophy" realm.... ;-)

Post by D
Well, I provided you with proof in the form of
G.E. Moore. I think we are talking in circles, so I'll
let the proof stand, with the added point (which I think
I mentioned previously as well) that there is no escape
from a solipsist and infinitely skeptical point of view,
but that point of view hsa yielded far less than science
and materialism. But if you doubt all, there is nothing
anyone can say to convince you of anything. =)

That's almost always the case with all individuals, hence
my stance we're all in our own purely conceptual worlds
with private meanings/significances/contexts/etc. assigned
to common symbols, which is necessarily a recipe for not
being able to agree, not being able to get along, etc.

The proof is in the disagreement about the same symbols.

Post by D

Post by oldernow
"Mind only" covers the whole shebang, including itself.

What does that mean? The way I see it, mind is created
on top of a world and material substratum. First world,
then mind.

And what of the Really Super Convincing When You're In Them
worlds we refer to as "dreams"? What of the seemingly very
real "material" in those worlds?

See also: Mind Only

Post by D
Well, I believe the essence of the observer can be
found in space/time, and that we have science, books,
experiments, which enable us to talk very authoritatively
about space/time.

And your belief makes that seem real(ity) to you.

But no actual physical reality is necessary for that
experience. I've night-and-day-dreamed such many times,
and upon seemingly awakening discover all that seeming
"stuff" has been nothing but Mind Only.

Post by D
Ahh... but the fact that we do not yet know the ultimate
subtratum and the ultimate theory, does not invalidate the
fact that we do know that there is a table in front of us,
and that gravity can kill.

Once upon a time I lived with a landlady who would
sometimes cry and scream that the CIA was screaming
offensive and frightening things her direction.

But I couldn't hear a thing.

So much for an appearance - of a table, say - necessarily
implying an underlying physical reality....

Post by D
The fact that we do not know everything, and that we
are somtimes honestly required to say that we don't know
(yet) does not imply that we should throw science out the
window. If that were the case we would still run around
on the savannah.

Nobody's saying you have to throw anything out a
window. I've simply a different view on how this
seems to be happening.

Post by D
Actually atoms have been observed.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/05/this-is-the-first-x-ray-taken-of-a-single-atom/

Are you sure they weren't merely "observed" in ultimately
the same way my old landlady "heard" the CIA shouting
obscenities at her?

Post by D
No, my evidence is based on what I see, repeatable
experience and experiment. If gravity is just faith, I'd
expect the person to jump out the window without harm. But
somehow that never seems to happen. ;)

So... you can't imagine a simulation/mind sufficiently
conceptually deep/detailed to include nuances like pain and
harm - making its container world sufficiently seemingly
real, especially to NPC's pre-convinced (i.e. programmed)
they're "in" a physical reality?

Post by D
I mean if there is no one but yourself, you can do anything
to anyone, since no innocent bystander is harmed.

But of *course* consequences are built into a good
simulation!

Post by D
Until you wake up. Also note that no ducking and quacking
takes place in the dream, it is electrons moving around
in your brain.

And you're confident there's no waking up from what seems
to be a real physical world? How come some dreams are given
"it is electrons moving around in your brain" status,
but not one in particular?

Perhaps in this dream there need be a primary dream in
which other dreams can seemingly occur in a way that we
call those "dreams", but the primary "physical reality"?

[D]

Post by oldernow

Post by D
Apologies for the delay! My mail/news client separate new
posts from unseen posts, and since this was filed as unseen
and not new I missed it. =( But now I know!

A likely excuse! :P

Well, one does ones best! ;)

Post by oldernow

Post by D

Post by oldernow
Why does there need to be a point to discussion?

Well, let me rephrase, why does there need to be a point
to discussing with someone else?

I find it much more pleasant without there being a point
to it.

Aha! So the pleasure of there not being a point is the point then! ;)

Post by oldernow

Post by D
And also let me hasten to add, that entertainment and
passing the time are points.

There we go!

Amen!

Post by oldernow

Post by D
I think you should ditch philosophy and embrace the
heavenly realm of theology instead! ;)

I prefer creating statements/response wherever I happen
to be.

Well, I think that is much more inclusive of you.

Post by oldernow
I mean, I might think differently if everyone had the
same view of what 'philosophy' "is", or 'theology'
"is". Instead, it's quite easy to imagine finding a
"theology" space, and being told I should ditch it to
embrace some "philosophy" realm.... ;-)

;)

Post by oldernow

Post by D
Well, I provided you with proof in the form of
G.E. Moore. I think we are talking in circles, so I'll
let the proof stand, with the added point (which I think
I mentioned previously as well) that there is no escape
from a solipsist and infinitely skeptical point of view,
but that point of view hsa yielded far less than science
and materialism. But if you doubt all, there is nothing
anyone can say to convince you of anything. =)

That's almost always the case with all individuals, hence
my stance we're all in our own purely conceptual worlds
with private meanings/significances/contexts/etc. assigned
to common symbols, which is necessarily a recipe for not
being able to agree, not being able to get along, etc.

Well, I don't think it is binary. But yes, certain things are
susceptible to what you say. One of my favourite topics on that note is
gender! I say... show me your chromosomes and I'll show you your gender,
and boy have I gotten venomous looks based on that statement. ;)

Post by oldernow
The proof is in the disagreement about the same symbols.

Well, it can't be that bad, can it? I mean there must be some symbol we
could agree on perhaps? And if so, would it disprove your current world
view?

Post by oldernow

Post by D

Post by oldernow
"Mind only" covers the whole shebang, including itself.

What does that mean? The way I see it, mind is created
on top of a world and material substratum. First world,
then mind.

And what of the Really Super Convincing When You're In Them
worlds we refer to as "dreams"? What of the seemingly very
real "material" in those worlds?

This is a very interesting question. I don't know how it is for
everyone else, but for me, dreams are never that convincing. To me there
is a distinct and crystal clear difference between dream and waking
life, and to my knowledge and memory I have never been confused as to
which is which, regardless of what Chuang Tzu might say or think in his
classic butterfly dream.

And when it comes to how convincing it is, or is not, it all gets clear
when you wake up, alternatively when the brain activity and bodily
parameters are measured in the two different states.

Post by oldernow
See also: Mind Only

Post by D
Well, I believe the essence of the observer can be
found in space/time, and that we have science, books,
experiments, which enable us to talk very authoritatively
about space/time.

And your belief makes that seem real(ity) to you.

It is not belief, since it is based on proof. I do know and accept that
you do not accept my proof, but at the same time, that makes you very
unique, since the majority of the people I try my proof on do seem to
agree with me.

Another distinction is that I also revise my mental knowledge, based on
new facts, which distinguish it from pure belief as well.

Post by oldernow
But no actual physical reality is necessary for that
experience. I've night-and-day-dreamed such many times,
and upon seemingly awakening discover all that seeming
"stuff" has been nothing but Mind Only.

But you can hook yourself up to any nr of EEG machines and measuring
equipment and easily prove to yourself that it was a dream, no matter
what your subjective view at that very instance was.

Post by oldernow

Post by D
Ahh... but the fact that we do not yet know the ultimate
subtratum and the ultimate theory, does not invalidate the
fact that we do know that there is a table in front of us,
and that gravity can kill.

Once upon a time I lived with a landlady who would
sometimes cry and scream that the CIA was screaming
offensive and frightening things her direction.
But I couldn't hear a thing.
So much for an appearance - of a table, say - necessarily
implying an underlying physical reality....

Well, easy to prove or disprove. Sound is vibration, and can be
measured.

Post by oldernow

Post by D
The fact that we do not know everything, and that we
are somtimes honestly required to say that we don't know
(yet) does not imply that we should throw science out the
window. If that were the case we would still run around
on the savannah.

Nobody's saying you have to throw anything out a
window. I've simply a different view on how this
seems to be happening.

Well, this view also means the results should be different? Because if
there is not difference between your view and reality, then why insist
on the view when proof is easily available?

And if reality and other people do not exist, why should you be sad when
your hurt someone?

Or what about suicide? No one is killed, and in fact, if mind is all
there is, the suicide is an illusion right?

I'm just saying that everyone I met who was a solipsist seemed very
uninterested in trying his thesis by killing himself or someone else,
and acted as if, 100%, an external world existed, and if that is how the
person acts, while claiming to have a different world view, then I
cannot quite take that person seriously.

I prefer when people act in accordance with their beliefs, or else I
quickly suspect them of mental and/or verbal theater. That can of course
be entertaining but it certainly is not a good foundation for an
enlightening discussion, but does run the risk of being a waste of time.
=(

Post by oldernow

Post by D
Actually atoms have been observed.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/05/this-is-the-first-x-ray-taken-of-a-single-atom/

Are you sure they weren't merely "observed" in ultimately
the same way my old landlady "heard" the CIA shouting
obscenities at her?

Yes.

Post by oldernow

Post by D
No, my evidence is based on what I see, repeatable
experience and experiment. If gravity is just faith, I'd
expect the person to jump out the window without harm. But
somehow that never seems to happen. ;)

So... you can't imagine a simulation/mind sufficiently
conceptually deep/detailed to include nuances like pain and
harm - making its container world sufficiently seemingly
real, especially to NPC's pre-convinced (i.e. programmed)
they're "in" a physical reality?

Of course I can, but I have never seen any proof of it, and since I have
never seen any proof or indication of this possibility, I discount it,
since the proof I do see for an external world, is so much stronger.

It is the same thing about god. Of course I can imagine that god is all
there is, no problem at all. But I have never seen any proof, so I do
not entertain that belief.

Post by oldernow

Post by D
I mean if there is no one but yourself, you can do anything
to anyone, since no innocent bystander is harmed.

But of *course* consequences are built into a good
simulation!

Yes, but they are just simulations and not the real thing. After all,
you don't feel bad when killing a monster in your computer games do you?

Post by oldernow

Post by D
Until you wake up. Also note that no ducking and quacking
takes place in the dream, it is electrons moving around
in your brain.

And you're confident there's no waking up from what seems
to be a real physical world? How come some dreams are given
"it is electrons moving around in your brain" status,
but not one in particular?

That goes the same way as the simulation argument. Of course there is
always a possibility, but given the times that has not happened, I
discount it until I do, or find hard proof that this is in fact a real
possibility. Until then... the external world it is, since that is the
most simple and logical explanation that fits with science.

Post by oldernow
Perhaps in this dream there need be a primary dream in
which other dreams can seemingly occur in a way that we
call those "dreams", but the primary "physical reality"?

Are you talking quantum physics now? ;) If so, let's wait, observe,
collect more evidence and see where it leads us! =)

On a different note... did you ever consider the amount of freedom, the
enormously powerful freedom we have to believe what ever we want,
regardless of proof?

Isn't that amazing? Logical and experimental proof, is according to one
way of seeing it, iron clad, and should force us to update our beliefs.

But, since we are somewhat irrational monkeys, with an enormous
imagination and ability to mix up imagination with realities, we are
completely free to disregard it.

Would you say that this is a huge part of freedom, and a part which
perhaps, scares people?

[x]

Post by oldernow

Post by D

Post by oldernow
Assuming you meant the symbol 'external' by the symbol

Yes! =) I blame the wife for talking to me when writing. ;)

How dare you not recognize her angelic intent in helping
you transcend external unto eternal! :-)

Post by D
I think an easier theory is that the rock hurts and the
external world exists. ;)

I think an even easier theory is that all that seems
to be is mind only, but some of it considered (again,
another mental operation) external, real, etc.
That seems even more inclusive than your external
world theory, because the mind only theory accounts
for all phenomena, including mind (sure, that leads to
self-referentiality looping).. but the "external world"
theory can't seem to explain - i.e. account for - the
likes of mind, beings, self, etc.

Post by D
I refer to G.E. Moores "here is a hand" proof. Silly on
the surface, but very profound if you think about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand

But that Wikipedia entry doesn't even mention an
observer in its summary at the top, which seems a
necessary component of "knowing" (is there knowing
without a knower?) a hand or two.. and yet trying
to find that observer leads to nothing but a set of
thoughts/concepts seemingly repeated to itself. In
other words, said observer doesn't consist of anything
observable/conceivable/nameable.
If the observer is that flimsy a "reality", what about
the solidity of whatever it tells itself it observes?
And don't forget that words imply an objective/external
reality. In fact, the degree of seeming real-ness seems
proportional to the frequency and intensity with which
the words are repeated.
Given that, the more we discuss, the more real/external
the world will seem *unless/until* a phrase or
passage or two/more triggers the all-important
word/concept/representation -less "insperience" that flies
below the representational plane, so to speak....
Where is the world in absence of a mind to know it -
aka insist it be so and thus?

I am of the viewpoint that if some things are self
referential then that is enough.

By some definitions of thought I may not think.

By some definitions of existence I may not exist.

If I am referring simply to something myself it is
ok, but if there is a common meaning in language
of some word patterns then that is also self referential
to the language structure.

But that is adequate, it is simply the reference of a
word system with respect to itself, and the meanings
within the word system may still have value with respect
to each other.

It is ok if I do not think and it is ok if I do not
exist.

But the relation of the words or ideas with respect
to each other might still have some value in relation
to each other even without my specific thoughts
or existence.

Then there is the question what is mind and what are
ideas? It seems feasible to me that in some languages
something like 'mind' might have 'meaning', whatever
that means. It might have something to do with 'ideas'
or 'theories' but that is difficult to say.

Post by oldernow

Post by D

Post by oldernow

Post by D
3. Even if they do not believe in the world and facts,
they still seem pretty intent on arguing their point with
other people, even though there is no point to argue. ;)

Could it be they're fascinated by doing so seeming to
provoke the kind of post this one is in reply to, and they
so love typing that of course they're going to create as
many opportunities to type as they possibly can?

But that would imply an external world, or if not, the
person would enjoy talking to himself.

But such "happens" in dreams too. Is a given dream's world
external? The self/observer therein surely thinks it is,
and yet all of a sudden POOF! both that world and that
self are gone upon "awakening".
Hmmm... how do you know with certainty that's not what's
seemingly happening "here" apart from a vinyl record
sort of skipping/repeating that this is a special case,
and the others are "merely" dreams? Because that sense
of "special case" i.e. "this is *REALLY* happening" -
is present in dreams as well.

Post by D
If he believes that everything is just himself, that would
be a collapse into solipsism, and ultimate doubt.

You say that like it's a bad thing ("collapse"), something
to be avoided, etc.
Could a purely conceived being possibly conceive of its
purely conceptual underpinnings? And isn't using words by
definition and attempt to conceive?

Post by D
Note that with that position, the only thing you could
ever trust is the present moment. You also could not trust
your identity. However, what you would have to acknowledge,
regardless of illusion, is that for any eventual illusion
to take place, some kind of processing need to take place
in some kind of medium over time. That would imply an
external world.

It could also imply imagining an external world and
blessing that world with non-merely-imagined-hood.
Isn't taking that world to be external-to/apart-from a
modeler the worst possible model for a modeler? Sounds
like a guaranteed recipe for alone-liness, and subsequent
flavors of anguish rooted in alone-liness.
And don't individuals mentally perform that "imagine and
declare the reality - and details thereof - of that which
is imagined" operation incessantly? Perhaps incessantly
enough to generate a damned convincing "world" containing
that individual?

[oldernow]

Post by D
Found this article and thought that you might be
interested. What will happen when we no longer have a
shared world of facts which we can refer to?
...
Transcribed from Twitter. The author took it down because
of harassment, so I am not going to point to who they
were. Not that I know anything about them anyway. So you
have to make your own tricky call about whether and how
it is relevant.

Post by D
Found this article and thought that you might be
interested. What will happen when we no longer have a
shared world of facts which we can refer to?

When was this not the case?

Of course, I want to go further. How could there *possibly*
be a "shared world of facts" when such would necessarily
consist of nothing but words, and a primary aspect of
individuality is an utterly private/isolated "conceptuality
space" (usually called "mind") in which words have been
assigned utterly private/isolated meanings due to having
come to "know" them in so private/isolated a conceptuality
context?

[olcott]

Post by D
Found this article and thought that you might be interested. What will
happen when we no longer have a shared world of facts which we can refer
to?
     Weird interaction with a student this week. They keep coming up
with weird “facts” (“Greek is actually a combination of four other
languages”) that left me baffled. I said let’s look this stuff up
together, and they said OK, I’ll open a search bar, and they opened …
Ch*tGPT. And I was like “this is not a search bar” and they were like
“yes it is, you can search for anything in here”.
    The thing that made me feel crazy is like, every kid that’s using
this as a browser is getting new bespoke false “facts”. This isn’t “a
widespread misconception about X that stems from how it’s taught in
schools.” Each individual kid is now hooked into a Nonsense Machine.
    With the “widespread misconception about X” you can start at a
baseline. Like, OK, in tenth grade we talk about X thing from history,
and that leaves us with some misguided concepts about X, but we can
correct that as students get broader understandings of the world. But
with this, each child is getting unique wrong facts they are sure are
correct … because they did what we told them to do! They “looked it up”!
They got it from somewhere! It’s not a kid making up a belief on hearsay
and assumption … it’s something they think they learned.
    This kid was extremely combative with me, and I understood why. I
was sitting in front of him telling him that the internet, a computer,
technology, all these supposedly authoritative things … were wrong. And
that I, one person, was right. He basically couldn’t believe me. He
decided that I was simply a teacher who’d made a mistake. He could check
it, after all! He could look it up! He could find the real facts. I
obviously hadn’t done that, I was just an adult who’d decided I was
smarter than him. Hence the defensiveness. Like I said: I understood.
    It was so fucking rough. I did my best, but I am one person trying
to work against a campaign of misinformation so vast that it fucking
terrifies me. This kid is being set up for a life lived entirely inside
the hall of mirrors.
Transcribed from Twitter. The author took it down because of harassment,
so I am not going to point to who they were. Not that I know anything
about them anyway. So you have to make your own tricky call about
whether and how it is relevant.
https://miniver.blogspot.com/2024/07/ai-students-and-epistemic-crisis.html .

This is certainly an issue.
The AI kind currently seems far more tame than
the disinformation that is bought and paid for
to serve the self-interests of large groups.

[oldernow]

Post by olcott

Post by D
https://miniver.blogspot.com/2024/07/ai-students-and-epistemic-crisis.html .

This is certainly an issue.
The AI kind currently seems far more tame than
the disinformation that is bought and paid for
to serve the self-interests of large groups.

There's seemingly no limit to the tripe a gang of egos
can posit.