On Idealism, repeated

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#461  Postby Frozenworld » Nov 29, 2021 2:26 am

hackenslash wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:As usual you have nothing to disprove it.


Your logical fallacy is: onus probandi. Scepticism is the rebuttable position.

You don't only have nothing to prove it, as a basic matter of logic because, since onus probandi reduces to ipse dixit - essentially the evacuant of your rectal sphincter - you have nothing at all.

I've already explained why sensation isn't evidence against solipsism: https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-of- ... Pete-Ashly


And we've explained ad nauseam why evidence is not required against something entirely without evidence. The burden of provision of evidence is on the affirmative claim. This is among the most rudimentary principles of epistemology, expressed in serious circles as the principle that the null hypothesis can never be falsified, a.k.a. the problem of induction.

This is really simple, straightforward logic, which tells us you haven't the first clue how to draw a valid inference.


And the burden is on you to show that there is an external reality, which you haven't.

Apparently hallucinations and lucid dreams are all created by the brain as the link showed, so what evidence can you have for there being a reality external to yourself.

If anyone can't draw a valid inference it's you guys. Nothing you have mentioned suggests an external reality that is provable. All "Evidence" is through sensation which doesn't prove anything (especially given the case of illusions and how dreams and hallucinations work).

YOU are the ones positing a world out there and the burden rests with you to get evidence for it, but the only way to do that is through sensation which cannot be verified by any external source. In an epistemological sense you are trapped.

Every point you make is guilty of the trilemma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

Dissent – The uncertainty demonstrated by the differences of opinions among philosophers and people in general.
Progress ad infinitum – All proof rests on matters themselves in need of proof, and so on to infinity. See regress argument.
Relation – All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as they are looked upon from different points of view.
Assumption – The truth asserted is based on an unsupported assumption.
Circularity – the truth asserted involves a circularity of proofs (known in scholasticism as "diallelus")


In short you and I have got nothing.
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 97

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#462  Postby Greg the Grouper » Nov 29, 2021 3:10 am

Frozenworld wrote:In short you and I have got nothing.


I am 'something'.
I exist.
Ergo, 'something' must exist.
Ergo, it is possible for 'something' to exist.
Nothing precludes existence (see: I exist).
Ergo, nothing precludes the existence of other 'somethings'.
Considering I have no reason to believe that my existence is in any way unique, I have no reason to deny the existence of things aside from myself.

You're unironically the only one here with literally nothing to show for their position. No wonder you have to pretend that yours is the default.
Greg the Grouper
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 165

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#463  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 29, 2021 5:31 am

newolder wrote:To whom are you failing to shift the burden of proof?


Hackenslash wrote:Your logical fallacy is: onus probandi



Frozenworld wrote:
And the burden is on you to show that there is an external reality, which you haven't.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 29448
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#464  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 29, 2021 5:32 am

Apparently hallucinations and lucid dreams are all created by the brain as the link showed,...


Dave down the pub said, so it must be true.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 29448
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#465  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 29, 2021 5:32 am

If anyone can't draw a valid inference it's you guys.


It's not me who's failed abysmally to validate my proposition - it's everyone else!
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 29448
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#466  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 29, 2021 5:35 am

In short you and I have got nothing.


Your proposition doesn't explain why running face first into a wall knocks me unconscious. Your proposition fails to offer any explanation for anything at all and makes explaining essentially anything impossible.

Thus your cute little attempt to pretend there's parity is not only laughable, but is also dismissed during the brief interludes between guffaws.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 29448
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#467  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 29, 2021 5:36 am

So WHO are you attempting to shift the burden of proof onto, FW?

Only, whenever you're asked a question like this, you become loudly silent.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 29448
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#468  Postby BlackBart » Nov 29, 2021 6:19 am

Argumentum Ad Pollywannacracka :coffee:
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12523
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#469  Postby BlackBart » Nov 29, 2021 8:32 am

Spearthrower wrote:
In short you and I have got nothing.


Your proposition doesn't explain why running face first into a wall knocks me unconscious.

Still funny though. :tehe:
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12523
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#470  Postby hackenslash » Nov 29, 2021 12:05 pm

Frozenworld wrote:And the burden is on you to show that there is an external reality, which you haven't.

Apparently hallucinations and lucid dreams are all created by the brain as the link showed, so what evidence can you have for there being a reality external to yourself.

If anyone can't draw a valid inference it's you guys. Nothing you have mentioned suggests an external reality that is provable. All "Evidence" is through sensation which doesn't prove anything (especially given the case of illusions and how dreams and hallucinations work).


Somebody desperately needs to go and find out what the word 'empirical' means.

YOU are the ones positing a world out there and the burden rests with you to get evidence for it, but the only way to do that is through sensation which cannot be verified by any external source. In an epistemological sense you are trapped.


Except for that bit where, on solipsism, there is not nor can there be ANY epistemology. You have no idea of what you're on about.

Every point you make is guilty of the trilemma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

Dissent – The uncertainty demonstrated by the differences of opinions among philosophers and people in general.
Progress ad infinitum – All proof rests on matters themselves in need of proof, and so on to infinity. See regress argument.
Relation – All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as they are looked upon from different points of view.
Assumption – The truth asserted is based on an unsupported assumption.
Circularity – the truth asserted involves a circularity of proofs (known in scholasticism as "diallelus")


Nice try, but complete fail, and here's why: The assumption - the one I mentioned earlier upon which all of epistemology is founded - is not only supported by all the means detailed in this and every other asinine thread on this cretinous topic, but is stated up front as the foundation of epistemology: cogito ergo sum.

It's not only not unsupported, ALL the evidence supports it in a way that solipsism CANNOT BE SUPPORTED, even in principle. We call it observation.

In short you and I have got nothing.


Well, I've certainly got nothing from you. What I do have - that you don't - is a grasp of epistemology.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22249
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#471  Postby BlackBart » Nov 29, 2021 1:26 pm

.

YOU are the ones positing a world out there and the burden rests with you to get evidence for it, but the only way to do that is through sensation which cannot be verified by any external source. In an epistemological sense you are trapped.

Ignoring, for the moment, that you've got that arse about face as per fucking usual, what would *US* beavering away positing a real world imply? Come on, the only consciousness in the village, think hard. You can do it
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12523
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#472  Postby hackenslash » Nov 29, 2021 1:31 pm

BlackBart wrote: the only consciousness in the village...


Image
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22249
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#473  Postby BlackBart » Nov 29, 2021 1:41 pm

That hackenslash, mad for ontology, he is.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12523
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#474  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 29, 2021 3:41 pm

Hack: The map is not the terrain!

FW: There is no terrain, it's all map, man... all map!

Hack: Then it's not a fucking map, is it?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 29448
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#475  Postby hackenslash » Nov 30, 2021 9:56 am

:mrgreen:
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22249
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#476  Postby Frozenworld » Dec 02, 2021 5:03 am

Greg the Grouper wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:In short you and I have got nothing.


I am 'something'.
I exist.
Ergo, 'something' must exist.
Ergo, it is possible for 'something' to exist.
Nothing precludes existence (see: I exist).
Ergo, nothing precludes the existence of other 'somethings'.
Considering I have no reason to believe that my existence is in any way unique, I have no reason to deny the existence of things aside from myself.

You're unironically the only one here with literally nothing to show for their position. No wonder you have to pretend that yours is the default.


Considering I have no reason to believe that my existence is in any way unique, I have no reason to deny the existence of things aside from myself.


This is incorrect not to mention that it doesn't follow. There is every reason to doubt the senses especially when you see how they are easily to manipulate.

Even more so when you realize that color and sound don't exist. They're just figments of the mind. Knowing that saying your senses are a foundation for external reality is circular putting you back in the trilemma, so again you have nothing.
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 97

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#477  Postby Frozenworld » Dec 02, 2021 5:10 am

hackenslash wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:And the burden is on you to show that there is an external reality, which you haven't.

Apparently hallucinations and lucid dreams are all created by the brain as the link showed, so what evidence can you have for there being a reality external to yourself.

If anyone can't draw a valid inference it's you guys. Nothing you have mentioned suggests an external reality that is provable. All "Evidence" is through sensation which doesn't prove anything (especially given the case of illusions and how dreams and hallucinations work).


Somebody desperately needs to go and find out what the word 'empirical' means.

YOU are the ones positing a world out there and the burden rests with you to get evidence for it, but the only way to do that is through sensation which cannot be verified by any external source. In an epistemological sense you are trapped.


Except for that bit where, on solipsism, there is not nor can there be ANY epistemology. You have no idea of what you're on about.

Every point you make is guilty of the trilemma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

Dissent – The uncertainty demonstrated by the differences of opinions among philosophers and people in general.
Progress ad infinitum – All proof rests on matters themselves in need of proof, and so on to infinity. See regress argument.
Relation – All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as they are looked upon from different points of view.
Assumption – The truth asserted is based on an unsupported assumption.
Circularity – the truth asserted involves a circularity of proofs (known in scholasticism as "diallelus")


Nice try, but complete fail, and here's why: The assumption - the one I mentioned earlier upon which all of epistemology is founded - is not only supported by all the means detailed in this and every other asinine thread on this cretinous topic, but is stated up front as the foundation of epistemology: cogito ergo sum.

It's not only not unsupported, ALL the evidence supports it in a way that solipsism CANNOT BE SUPPORTED, even in principle. We call it observation.

In short you and I have got nothing.


Well, I've certainly got nothing from you. What I do have - that you don't - is a grasp of epistemology.


Apparently you don't have a grasp of it because you still don't have evidence for the claim that there is an external reality.

Skepticism is the default. And the foundation that you claim epistemology is founded on is false, and he been shown to be so several times. Cogito ergo sum is wrong. There is no evidence to back it because it all resorts back to what is doubted to be true. You really don't have a grasp on any of this stuff. Many have debunked there being an experiencer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similarit ... ite_ref-47

I don't get where you're going with knowing the word "empirical" because that is the very thing you guys claim shows external reality and other people when it is just circular. Using observation to justify observation.

Solipsism says one cannot know for sure if there is an external reality or other people, and you cannot verify it to be true or false. Harder versions say there isn't but that's a minority view and considered absurd even by other solipsists.

Though considering you guys haven't addressed any of the points I posted or linked to that undermine your attempts to call solipsism nonsense I wonder if you fully grasp it and what it means. There is a difference between knowing what it is and understanding it.
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 97

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#478  Postby Greg the Grouper » Dec 02, 2021 8:31 am

Frozenworld wrote:
Greg the Grouper wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:In short you and I have got nothing.


I am 'something'.
I exist.
Ergo, 'something' must exist.
Ergo, it is possible for 'something' to exist.
Nothing precludes existence (see: I exist).
Ergo, nothing precludes the existence of other 'somethings'.
Considering I have no reason to believe that my existence is in any way unique, I have no reason to deny the existence of things aside from myself.

You're unironically the only one here with literally nothing to show for their position. No wonder you have to pretend that yours is the default.


Considering I have no reason to believe that my existence is in any way unique, I have no reason to deny the existence of things aside from myself.


This is incorrect not to mention that it doesn't follow. There is every reason to doubt the senses especially when you see how they are easily to manipulate.

Even more so when you realize that color and sound don't exist. They're just figments of the mind. Knowing that saying your senses are a foundation for external reality is circular putting you back in the trilemma, so again you have nothing.


When you can point out where I even mentioned the senses, I'll concede the argument.
Greg the Grouper
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 165

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#479  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 02, 2021 11:53 am

Frozenworld wrote:There is every reason to doubt the senses especially when you see how they are easily to manipulate.



Exactly as much reason to doubt that you exist, that your thoughts exist, that anything exists.

Your declarations are, as always, lacking any depth of consideration. You are motivated only to find the end you desire, and have no ability either to show a logically coherent path there, nor to recognize any of the ramifications of your absurd position.


Frozenworld wrote:Even more so when you realize that color and sound don't exist.


They exist in exactly the same way that everything else exists. An external phenomenon perceived by your senses and converted by your brain into the sensations of colour and sound, but your brain is actively measuring and translating something in the external world, despite your unwillingness to engage honestly in any level of discussion.


Frozenworld wrote:They're just figments of the mind.


Then unfortunately for you, according to your own 'logic', your mind is also a figment of your mind. Turtles, all the way down.


Frozenworld wrote: Knowing that saying your senses are a foundation for external reality...


Bait and switch. Decide what proposition you want to defend, then fail to defend it as usual - but you can't both talk about external reality AND say it doesn't exist from the same position - it's nonsensical. Nonsensical arguments are worthless.


Frozenworld wrote:... is circular putting you back in the trilemma, so again you have nothing.


Exactly: according to your borked assertionism - nothing exists. Go you!
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 29448
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#480  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 02, 2021 11:55 am

Frozenworld wrote:
Apparently you don't have a grasp of it because you still don't have evidence for the claim that there is an external reality.


You repeatedly elected to ignore every rebuttal of this flatulent guff - so sure, if you stick your fingers in your ears and shout LA LA LA every time someone defeats your argument, then perhaps you can convince yourself you're winning.

In reality, you're just making yourself look like a loon.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 29448
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests