On Idealism, repeated

Spearthrower · **#501** by **Spearthrower** » Dec 16, 2021 3:35 am

Frozenworld wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:If you read any of that you'd see how one cannot prove that whether their beliefs match reality or not.

Not sure if you're convincing yourself that you have substantiated anything you've said, but I can tell you from my perspective that I'd expect a more involving conversation with a bot.

So instead of trying to show how we can prove things correspond with reality (which as the quote shows we can't) you're just gonna pretend I don't know anything when you haven't shown anything to support your point?

This entire thread shows that your position is micromillimetres deep.

You have had pages to validate your contention, yet you're still playing the pass the burden of proof game. This is because, as well everyone here knows, you have fuck all substantiation for your claims. You're selling woo, and no one here is buying.

Have you run into a wall yet?

Frozenworld · **#502** by **Frozenworld** » Dec 17, 2021 10:48 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:If you read any of that you'd see how one cannot prove that whether their beliefs match reality or not.

Not sure if you're convincing yourself that you have substantiated anything you've said, but I can tell you from my perspective that I'd expect a more involving conversation with a bot.

So instead of trying to show how we can prove things correspond with reality (which as the quote shows we can't) you're just gonna pretend I don't know anything when you haven't shown anything to support your point?

This entire thread shows that your position is micromillimetres deep.

You have had pages to validate your contention, yet you're still playing the pass the burden of proof game. This is because, as well everyone here knows, you have fuck all substantiation for your claims. You're selling woo, and no one here is buying.

Have you run into a wall yet?

It's not woo. I have shown how your evidence eventually falls apart and how much you take for granted. That skepticism is the default and all you can do is say "no it isn't" which doesn't amount to much. Everything you have offered in defense against solipsism fails due to the Trilema. All you have is your say so and nothing else but you won't admit it.

You might actually want to read other things that show how little you know:

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-pos ... 9031498417

hackenslash · **#503** by **hackenslash** » Dec 17, 2021 11:03 pm

Frozenworld wrote:That skepticism is the default and all you can do is say "no it isn't" which doesn't amount to much.

Counterfactual bollocks. Not only have I explicitly said that scepticism is the default, I explained in detail why scepticism properly applied here fucks your wibble hard without kissing, not least because your position is not just asinine, it's entirely unfalsifiable, even in principle.

Seriously, get a blog if you're not interested in having your vacuous pap challenged. You've turned up for a nuke fight armed only with marshmallows and ignorance. You can't even own your position, having nothing to offer but the ill-considered fuckwittery of internet randos. Who knows, if you start your own blog, maybe some cretin will end up citing you in their forays into stupidity.

Of all the religious positions ever formulated, solipsism is far and away the most stupid. Maybe tied with presuppositionalism, if I'm being generous.

hackenslash · **#504** by **hackenslash** » Dec 17, 2021 11:13 pm

Oh, and you've dodged this twice:

This is the part of the show where you reveal to the class precisely what circular reasoning is, why it's a problem and, most important of all, when it's a problem.

Frozenworld · **#505** by **Frozenworld** » Dec 18, 2021 12:33 am

hackenslash wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:That skepticism is the default and all you can do is say "no it isn't" which doesn't amount to much.

Counterfactual bollocks. Not only have I explicitly said that scepticism is the default, I explained in detail why scepticism properly applied here fucks your wibble hard without kissing, not least because your position is not just asinine, it's entirely unfalsifiable, even in principle.

Seriously, get a blog if you're not interested in having your vacuous pap challenged. You've turned up for a nuke fight armed only with marshmallows and ignorance. You can't even own your position, having nothing to offer but the ill-considered fuckwittery of internet randos. Who knows, if you start your own blog, maybe some cretin will end up citing you in their forays into stupidity.

Of all the religious positions ever formulated, solipsism is far and away the most stupid. Maybe tied with presuppositionalism, if I'm being generous.

Except no you haven't I've shown why your counter points to solipsism don't work.

You talk about unfalsifiable but so is realism. You cannot verify an independent external reality because there is no way to get outside of your own senses. Subjectivity is all you have and everything else is just your say so, you have no proof as the link shows.

You just don’t get it. There are other minds in superposition with each other. They are my other minds as I created them as they (we) create each other’s minds as well. You are a creation of mine as is the internet. In your solipsistic universe, I am a creation of you as are all the others you fail to see are your creations as well. I exist as a persistent figment of your imagination.

Yes, subjectivity. There is only subjectivity, everything is a subjective creation of the solipsist. The internet is a subjective creation of my mind and due to superposition, everyone else creates their subjective internet, by default we are all solipsists in superposition.

Anent consciousness: You are mistaken, consciousness experiences itself, it corresponds to itself, and it is conscious of itself. Instead of nothingness, you have everythingness, and nothing becomes before primary by definition. It is fundamental.

Greg the Grouper · **#506** by **Greg the Grouper** » Dec 18, 2021 2:45 am

Frozenworld wrote:You talk about unfalsifiable but so is realism.

"But so is realism"?
So you concede that solipsism is unfalsifiable?

Cool, so hey, why don't we talk about a simple point brought up multiple times that you've failed to actually grasp?

Parsimony.

Both of these positions - Solipsism and Realism - would imply that you exist.
This would mean that something can exist. This must necessarily be the case.

So if we already know that existence is a possible state, and we know this because something must already exist, then what principle allows for the existence of yourself, but prevents the existence of other entities besides yourself?

Spearthrower · **#507** by **Spearthrower** » Dec 18, 2021 7:28 am

Frozenworld wrote:
It's not woo.

It is.

Frozenworld wrote: I have shown how your evidence eventually falls apart and how much you take for granted.

Where did you do that?

Frozenworld wrote:That skepticism is the default and all you can do is say "no it isn't" which doesn't amount to much.

It's really telling that you feel the need to lie when anyone reading this thread can see that it's a lie.

Frozenworld wrote: Everything you have offered in defense against solipsism fails due to the Trilema.

According to yet more assertions on your part.

Frozenworld wrote: All you have is your say so and nothing else but you won't admit it.

Says the guy who won't engage with any form of discussion.

Have you run into a wall yet?

Frozenworld wrote:You might actually want to read other things that show how little you know:

Let me guess - Dave down the pub asserted X, therefore X is true...?

Frozenworld wrote:https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-possible-solutions-if-any-for-solipsism/answer/Bert-Leysath?comment_id=232442787&comment_type=2&__filter__=all&__nsrc__=notif_page&__sncid__=21063362586&__snid3__=29031498417

Yup, exactly.

Spearthrower · **#508** by **Spearthrower** » Dec 18, 2021 7:31 am

Frozenworld wrote:Except no you haven't I've shown why your counter points to solipsism don't work.

Actually, when you stick your fingers in your ear and shout LALALALALA you can't claim that no one has spoken.

Your refusal to engage with any substance or integrity is not reflecting on anyone other than you.

Spearthrower · **#509** by **Spearthrower** » Dec 18, 2021 7:38 am

And yes, once again your entire modus operandi shows that even you do not agree with the foundational propositions of solipsism by the fact that you continually refer to my state of mind, my alleged refusal to do X, all the things I have or haven't done.

This is a lot like playing a football match against a team who, whenever they get the ball, set out insistently to score own goals. Sure, my team is unarguably destroying your team, but there's something awkward and perverse about it given that it's your team that's racking up all our goals.

Spearthrower · **#510** by **Spearthrower** » Dec 18, 2021 7:43 am

how much you take for granted.

How, according to your solipsism, can I take something for granted?

All you have is your say so

How, according to your solipsism, do I have a say so?

You might actually want to read other things that show how little you know:

How, according to your solipsism, do I know anything at all?

The truth here really is that it's manifestly clear that you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. You're the proponent of a position you can't define, and even you can't adhere to. You continuously defeat your own position, and then pretend to yourself you're doing well.

Methinks it's not solipsism driving you, but narcissism.

And now you'll ignore this, and simply continue repeating the same claims that were shown faulty a dozen pages ago.

Frozenworld · **#511** by **Frozenworld** » Dec 18, 2021 8:01 am

Greg the Grouper wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:You talk about unfalsifiable but so is realism.

"But so is realism"?
So you concede that solipsism is unfalsifiable?

Cool, so hey, why don't we talk about a simple point brought up multiple times that you've failed to actually grasp?

Parsimony.

Both of these positions - Solipsism and Realism - would imply that you exist.
This would mean that something can exist. This must necessarily be the case.

So if we already know that existence is a possible state, and we know this because something must already exist, then what principle allows for the existence of yourself, but prevents the existence of other entities besides yourself?

Because unlike everything else I can verify my existence. Everything else I can't. I can't get outside my senses.

Even modern physics points to solipsism:

It's you who is just plain wrong and just doesn't get it. Other minds exist in their own right (superposition obviates the other minds problem) but you can't grasp the idea that you are the creator of those minds in your own solipsistic reality. The idea that you are separate from your constructed so-called external perception is known as naive realism (look it up).

You have shown nothing in any of your comments except a misunderstanding of consciousness. There is only consciousness, there is no requirement for anything to precede it. You have it backwards, the brain is not responsible for consciousness, consciousness creates the brain.

Consciousness is the creative force for all that exists and it's definitely something, not nothing. I agree you can't get something from nothing, therefore there has always been something.

You are laboring under the illusion that consciousness is an emergent epiphenomen of a complex neural network called the brain. Max Planck knew that consciousness is fundamental as do many contemporary physicists (in whose domains you obviously don't travel.)

You have constructed a small box that contains your reality. Perception is reality. Expand your perception and you may understand what modern physics has known for some time now.

Even if you invoke parsimony you still end up at solipsism.

Frozenworld · **#512** by **Frozenworld** » Dec 18, 2021 8:03 am

Spearthrower wrote:And yes, once again your entire modus operandi shows that even you do not agree with the foundational propositions of solipsism by the fact that you continually refer to my state of mind, my alleged refusal to do X, all the things I have or haven't done.

This is a lot like playing a football match against a team who, whenever they get the ball, set out insistently to score own goals. Sure, my team is unarguably destroying your team, but there's something awkward and perverse about it given that it's your team that's racking up all our goals.

Again you aren't getting it. I'm believing in all the things you say because I can't prove it. I cannot verify other minds and people or an external reality. I don't want to believe in solipsism but I have no justification for realism, so at this point it's more like faith that erodes a little each day.

I mentioned that multiple times already but you're too dumb to get it. I can tell you are because you don't have solid arguments against it that haven't been shown to be lacking. You keep citing sensation which is circular or parsimony which brings you back to solipsism. If you have a brain try using it.

Spearthrower · **#513** by **Spearthrower** » Dec 18, 2021 8:34 am

Frozenworld wrote:
Because unlike everything else I can verify my existence.

Go on then.

You keep declaring you can, but it's all mouth and no trousers.

Time to put up.

Spearthrower · **#514** by **Spearthrower** » Dec 18, 2021 8:42 am

Frozenworld wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:And yes, once again your entire modus operandi shows that even you do not agree with the foundational propositions of solipsism by the fact that you continually refer to my state of mind, my alleged refusal to do X, all the things I have or haven't done.

This is a lot like playing a football match against a team who, whenever they get the ball, set out insistently to score own goals. Sure, my team is unarguably destroying your team, but there's something awkward and perverse about it given that it's your team that's racking up all our goals.

Again you aren't getting it.

Again, dismissing criticism by asserting that people 'don't get it' is insufficient.

Perhaps it's YOU who doesn't 'get it'?

Frozenworld wrote: I'm believing in all the things you say because I can't prove it.

Read that sentence again... you believe BECAUSE you can't prove it.... that's just pure nonsense. It's irrational, illogical, a non-sequitur.

Frozenworld wrote: I cannot verify other minds and people or an external reality.

No more or less than you can verify your own mind and inner reality.

You absolutely need to learn that assertions are valueless. You assert X, and that's all you offer. Then you assert not-X, and that's all you offer. Sorry chap, but you're not the fucking god of everything. If you are attempting to convince people that your position has any value at all - then you need to bring a damn sight more than your assertions.

Frozenworld wrote: I don't want to believe in solipsism but I have no justification for realism, so at this point it's more like faith that erodes a little each day.

You're just bullshitting and everyone here knows it.

Frozenworld wrote:I mentioned that multiple times already but you're too dumb to get it.

Oh, I'm too dumb. :lol:

You don't even recognize that every claim you make about me contradicts YOUR position... it's hilarious - your ineptitude is pure comedy.

Frozenworld wrote:I can tell you are because you don't have solid arguments against it that haven't been shown to be lacking.

According to you. It's like you think that you're the arbiter of everything. In reality, you're not. In reality, you're failing to mount even an outline of a case for your position.

Frozenworld wrote:You keep citing sensation...

No I don't.

Frozenworld wrote: which is circular or parsimony which brings you back to solipsism.

No it doesn't.

Frozenworld wrote: If you have a brain try using it.

According to you, I don't have a brain because I don't actually exist independently of you.

It's asinine, chap.

Spearthrower · **#515** by **Spearthrower** » Dec 18, 2021 8:43 am

Frozenworld wrote:Even modern physics points to solipsism:

Blagging bullshit doesn't suggest you have a case.

Cite a physics paper corroborating your contention, or else your assertion is dismissed.

Spearthrower · **#516** by **Spearthrower** » Dec 18, 2021 8:53 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:
Because unlike everything else I can verify my existence.

Go on then.

You keep declaring you can, but it's all mouth and no trousers.

Time to put up.

Predictions, folks?

hackenslash · **#517** by **hackenslash** » Dec 18, 2021 11:25 am

Frozenworld wrote:which is circular

Yoohoo!

hackenslash wrote:Oh, and you've dodged this twice:

This is the part of the show where you reveal to the class precisely what circular reasoning is, why it's a problem and, most important of all, when it's a problem.

Greg the Grouper · **#518** by **Greg the Grouper** » Dec 18, 2021 1:55 pm

Frozenworld wrote:Because unlike everything else I can verify my existence.

It's really difficult to have a conversation with you, when you can barely even grasp where the conversation is.

We are unsure of the existence of external reality.
However, we are certain of the existence of something.
Since we are certain that something exists (you), we are by necessity certain that it is possible to exist.

Now we ask the question of whether there exists some fundamental principle of reality that prevents other things from existing.
Which, is there?

Please read this, like, 300 times before making literally the same incorrect response, again.

Frozenworld wrote:Even modern physics points to solipsism:

This statement is entirely nonsensical; one only comes to understand modern physics by first exploring the world around them as external and tangible.

Spearthrower · **#519** by **Spearthrower** » Dec 18, 2021 2:03 pm

Greg the Grouper wrote:
It's really difficult to have a conversation with you, when you can barely even grasp where the conversation is.

Or what a conversation is.

Spearthrower · **#520** by **Spearthrower** » Dec 18, 2021 2:06 pm

Greg the Grouper wrote:
We are unsure of the existence of external reality.
However, we are certain of the existence of something.
Since we are certain that something exists (you), we are by necessity certain that it is possible to exist.

The faulty reasoning he's employing inevitably nails his jelly to the wall.

If he can validate his existence, then by default, he's also validated that something exists external to me, thus his contention that we cannot validate the existence of anything external is necessarily false. If he can't (which he can't) then it shows this is all a shell game, a text book example of an argument from ignorance.

But as it's pretty clear that he doesn't really have the ability to engage in these thoughts, and that he's borrowed them wholesale from some dude on Quora, it shouldn't be surprising that he's not capable of comprehending the flaws in that borrowed reasoning.

On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Who is online