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.

So my first instinct here is to bring up the identity property. That seems cyclical in nature to me; the demonstration that X is X is that, well, X is X. A self-justification of sorts. Though I assume that this is considered a non-issue due to it being a simple observation of a given object/idea?

And to bring up the example of God is real -> The Bible is the word of God -> God is real -> etc, I the main difference between these two that I can think of is that the less offensive of these two (X is X) is self-proving, in a way? There can't be a disconnect, as it's a single proposition; on the contrary, there exists disconnect between the two propositions in the second example.

You're on exactly the right track. I don't want to give the game away, but there's a deep technical reason, rooted in the precise nature of the conclusion, why the charge of circular reasoning only applies in a very specific setting. I'll DM you.

We're going to need to maintain a running list of things FW keeps dodging.

The burden of proof for a start.

Greg the Grouper wrote:So my first instinct here is to bring up the identity property. That seems cyclical in nature to me; the demonstration that X is X is that, well, X is X. A self-justification of sorts. Though I assume that this is considered a non-issue due to it being a simple observation of a given object/idea?

And to bring up the example of God is real -> The Bible is the word of God -> God is real -> etc, I the main difference between these two that I can think of is that the less offensive of these two (X is X) is self-proving, in a way? There can't be a disconnect, as it's a single proposition; on the contrary, there exists disconnect between the two propositions in the second example.

There's something else to be said about this that can serve as a good clue. Ask yourself this question about the three classical laws of logic:

Are they true?

When you unpick this question completely, it should become pretty apparent why the identity property isn't fallaciously circular. The same question can be applied to pretty much any conclusion and it will expose whether or not circularity is a problem. Contrary to popular contrivance, circularity is far from being problematic in all settings, and in fact it can be desirable in many settings. One place you find oodles of circularity is in dictionaries, because definitions are, by definition, tautologies, and all tautologies are circular.

hackenslash wrote:One place you find oodles of circularity is in dictionaries, because definitions are, by definition, tautologies, and all tautologies are circular.

That became crystal clear to me after I spent a few minutes leafing through a dictionary half a century ago. The circularity was not always direct, but it was obvious just the same.

On this proxy argument, which nicely highlights the problem with arguing by proxy:

if you’re going to drag physics in here you need to show the math.

Math? I ain’t got no math! I don’t need no math! I don’t got to show you any stinkin’ math!

I’m dealing with the philosophy of physics which requires no math, I’m not running a supercollider looking for subatomic particles, dealing with eigenvectors, statistics, or spectral areas.

The random internet wibbler who posted this may not need to 'show any stinkin' math', you certainly do. I'd have to assess his argument more completely to determine if he's made the same fatal error you have, to whit:

Frozenworld wrote:Even modern physics points to solipsism:

If modern physics points to solipsism, then the calculations have been done, because that's how modern physics points to anything.

In fact, your internet rando, simply by alluding to Planck's purported thoughts on consciousness and by advertising his credential, not only commits an argumentum ad verecundiam, he obviates the need to demonstrate that Planck's credential has relevance. Since Planck's credential is in modern physics, he's implicitly stating the equivalent to your statement, namely that Planck's authority applies here, so I want to see what the Hamiltonian of consciousness is, thank you very much. Then you can show me the four-vector for solipsism.

It's perfectly clear to all onlookers that you haven't mastered the rudiments of first order linear logic yet, so it's unsurprising that you can't grasp even the most obvious implications of your position, let alone the more subtle but necessary inferences in higher orders or off down the chain of inference.

And that's entirely the problem with argument by proxy. You go and find whatever sounds good to you or like it supports your position without even the most basic tools necessary to assess it, and you end up with a disparate collection of unconnected assertions and contradictory inferences and no means by which to analyse them for consistency.

Frozenworld wrote:
The point here is that Spearthrower hasn't given a good reason for the existence of an external world nor have they shown how there can't be a self. Regardless of the form it takes there is a "you" or something making observations and having experiences. One cannot deny that. Even if the experience is a "lie" there is still someone there to experience it. What he can't (and hasn't) do is show there to be an external reality.

OK I get the principle of parsimony does not work for you and that you seem destined to try and persuade yourself and argue with us that we could be figments of your imagination. I get it.

The problem is not whether one's perception of self is a "lie" or not. The problem is one can never be sure. So how can you persuade yourself of your existence? Even in a fully physicalist world it is easy to drum up some doubt about a "self". So in a solipsist's mind the self would have to develop definitions of self and somehow get around the self referential aspects of the self's logic as to what the self thinks the self is experiencing. Good luck FW.

As to showing there is an external reality ... so frigging what? Even in our real world it is recognized that inductive logic won't provide proof. You seem to ignore Spearthrower's agreement with this. You seem to think there is proof in a solipsist's mind when the solipsist themselves can't prove there is (or not) an "external" reality.

Frozenworld wrote:Not being sure about an external reality is big because it tends to affect a lot of areas in our lives. Mostly meaning, if none of this is real then it's all a waste of time and doesn't matter. Like a video game. You'd be all alone and have to live with that knowledge as well knowing that every person you saw was not real.

Waxing lyrical about "meaning" now are we? If you bother read stuff about non solipsist philosophy, people are circumspect with respect to meaning in the reality beyond the solipsist's mind.

As to being alone ... do you really believe you are "alone"?

Frozenworld wrote:I keep posting stuff from the quora link that people refuse to read just because it's from a website, when the same logic can be applied back to this forum. Though the guy thinks superposition supports his view of (not) solipsism so I don't know how good he is. HE also says that Max Plank said that consciousness is primary, meaning it occurs before matter as though that proves anything and I told him Physicists saying things outside their field of expertise leads to nonsense.

Though he has a point about naive realism being false and unproveable.

And we wish you would not keep posting and linking to a forum that you can't prove exists.

romansh wrote:So in a solipsist's mind the self would have to develop definitions of self and somehow get around the self referential aspects of the self's logic as to what the self thinks the self is experiencing

This is essentially what boggles me. Even ignoring the external, the ramifications are obscenely complicated to explain just in terms of the self. I think Greg touched on some of this nicely.

Spearthrower wrote:

romansh wrote:

Spearthrower wrote: But that necessarily includes the self and ones own thoughts, which solipsism then refuses to acknowledge.

Which flavour of solipsism refuses this? Again it is the simplest one I alluded to seems accurate to me.

Quite literally ALL flavours of solipsism - that's what solipsism is!

What I meant was which flavour of solipsism refuses [then] to acknowledge the self and one's own thoughts?

romansh wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

romansh wrote:

Spearthrower wrote: But that necessarily includes the self and ones own thoughts, which solipsism then refuses to acknowledge.

Which flavour of solipsism refuses this? Again it is the simplest one I alluded to seems accurate to me.

Quite literally ALL flavours of solipsism - that's what solipsism is!

What I meant was which flavour of solipsism refuses [then] to acknowledge the self and one's own thoughts?

Well, you need to keep in mind what I was responding to for context:

romansh wrote:At its very simplest solipsism argues that I can't be sure of the reality beyond what I experience as a perception.

That uncertainty/reality must necessarily also include the self and one's own thoughts, but solipsism's skepticism never includes this, contending that the self can be 'known' to exist. The self, however, is also perceived and experienced, so how can it be 'known' in a manner consistent with the arguments employed to contend that other things can't be 'known'? It boils down to special pleading. Either all things can be 'known' to some degree, accurate or not, or nothing - including the self - can be 'known' to exist.

And I would stress again, an accurate rendition of solipsism's contention isn't 'I can't be sure of X' - it's 'I can ONLY be sure that I/the self exist'.

Also, not incidentally, why cogito is a necessary assumption upon which knowledge is contingent.

http://philosophos.sdf.org/feature_arti ... le_27.html

D.R. Khashaba wrote:It is true, indeed it is tautologous, to say that all I know falls ... within my experience; that all I know is only known to me as object of my intelligence. But this only means that I can only know it in so far as I subject it to forms projected by my intelligence. It does not mean that its existence depends on my intelligence. Its existence, its givenness, is always there, staring me in the face, pressing in upon me. My very body; my impulses, my cravings, my pangs and my exhilarations; the whole of my being in so far as it is in any way objective, is given, and the function of my intelligence is to redeem that givenness by conferring upon it forms that transform it into intelligible experience indissolubly bound up with the subject: to redeem it, I say, not to negate it.

I think that conveys arguments made already in this thread, and also words it in a way that is concise enough that perhaps FW will deign to notice it and actually address it for a change.

hackenslash wrote:Also, not incidentally, why cogito is a necessary assumption upon which knowledge is contingent.

Indeed, and not at all surprisingly, the quote I just cited as you were posting that also notes this necessity.

By what criterion might a robot be judged to have a real sense of self, which functions as a foundation of knowledge?

Could that robot be redesigned to be mistaken?

I'm still suspecting that our human sense of self is social: each person is directly aware of their own thoughts and sensations, and of only guessing other people's thoughts, but social interaction constantly validates the sense of self, as the poster don't get me started described in post #493? We interact without knowing anything about the mechanistic basis of our thoughts and behaviour, and if we did understand the mechanisms (which by definition would be understood for a robot), would the sense of self survive?

It may well be that an effective sense of self, both for myself and for others, is central to receiving and transmitting information effectively, and in this sense is indeed an underpinning of knowledge? The human ability to share information is largely what sets our species apart?

When I see another person as a self, a centre of consciousness, I'm not seeing them as a mechanism but as being "like me". My evolved brain is using itself as a template for guessing what is going in in the other person's very similar brain. We still use this unscientific approach to understanding and predicting others because it still works much better than science in ordinary social life. It seems at least possible that science may eventually overtake evolved guesswork, and that then the sense of myself and others as separate selves would be less central? This is not remotely close to happening yet.

hackenslash wrote:On this proxy argument, which nicely highlights the problem with arguing by proxy:

if you’re going to drag physics in here you need to show the math.

Math? I ain’t got no math! I don’t need no math! I don’t got to show you any stinkin’ math!

I’m dealing with the philosophy of physics which requires no math, I’m not running a supercollider looking for subatomic particles, dealing with eigenvectors, statistics, or spectral areas.

The random internet wibbler who posted this may not need to 'show any stinkin' math', you certainly do. I'd have to assess his argument more completely to determine if he's made the same fatal error you have, to whit:

Frozenworld wrote:Even modern physics points to solipsism:

If modern physics points to solipsism, then the calculations have been done, because that's how modern physics points to anything.

In fact, your internet rando, simply by alluding to Planck's purported thoughts on consciousness and by advertising his credential, not only commits an argumentum ad verecundiam, he obviates the need to demonstrate that Planck's credential has relevance. Since Planck's credential is in modern physics, he's implicitly stating the equivalent to your statement, namely that Planck's authority applies here, so I want to see what the Hamiltonian of consciousness is, thank you very much. Then you can show me the four-vector for solipsism.

It's perfectly clear to all onlookers that you haven't mastered the rudiments of first order linear logic yet, so it's unsurprising that you can't grasp even the most obvious implications of your position, let alone the more subtle but necessary inferences in higher orders or off down the chain of inference.

And that's entirely the problem with argument by proxy. You go and find whatever sounds good to you or like it supports your position without even the most basic tools necessary to assess it, and you end up with a disparate collection of unconnected assertions and contradictory inferences and no means by which to analyse them for consistency.

The guy links to someone who proved panpsychism with math: https://www.quora.com/profile/H-Chris-Ransford

But I do understand first order logic which is why I can say there is nothing to really predicate your claim about an external reality. I showed that with the trilemma, you have no leg to stand on.

So far science hasn’t show aspects of existence to be mind dependent. Everything seems to function independently of the mind.

Got QM?

If you’re gonna cite physics you need math. Otherwise there is no reason to take you seriously. Even philosophers know that the interpretations mean little unless you understand the math behind them.

You need math, apparently you identify and feel safe with quantification. I don’t need no stinkin’ math. Philosophers don’t need math either and their interpretations aren’t necessarily conducive to numbers.

Superposition does not apply at all to what you are saying. It’s just addition of two states that yield another state. It has no application whatsoever to solipsism.

You clearly have no clue about superposition or solipsism despite your baseless assertions

All you do is bark assertions without evidence or explanation and when questioned say folks “don’t understand”. There is little value in talking to you because you clearly dont know what you’re talking about or even citing.

See — you are projecting your perceptions . It’s you who clearly don’t know what you are talking about although you believe you do. Why do you want to talk to someone anyway if you can eke no value from them.

The definition of solipsism directly conflicts with your “Thesis” (such as it is). You are asserting other minds, therefor it isn’t solipsism.

Your definition claims to conflict with mine. I posit other minds in superposition which are mind dependent. It doesn’t contradict solipsism at all.

Another point to add how you have no legs to stand on.

It is true, indeed it is tautologous, to say that all I know falls ... within my experience; that all I know is only known to me as object of my intelligence. But this only means that I can only know it in so far as I subject it to forms projected by my intelligence. It does not mean that its existence depends on my intelligence. Its existence, its givenness, is always there, staring me in the face, pressing in upon me. My very body; my impulses, my cravings, my pangs and my exhilarations; the whole of my being in so far as it is in any way objective, is given, and the function of my intelligence is to redeem that givenness by conferring upon it forms that transform it into intelligible experience indissolubly bound up with the subject: to redeem it, I say, not to negate it.

What is this "IT"? You are assuming there is some thing out there projecting on to you. Why is the function of intelligence to redeem what this alleged IT is giving to you. You keep alluding to something you cannot confirm, it could just be you making all this happen. IT's the same nonsense people who resist solipsism try to say.

Frozenworld wrote:
The guy links to someone who proved panpsychism with math: https://www.quora.com/profile/H-Chris-Ransford

So why don't you link to this alleged mathematical proof?

And why exactly are we on panpsychism now?

Frozenworld wrote:But I do understand first order logic which is why I can say there is nothing to really predicate your claim about an external reality. I showed that with the trilemma, you have no leg to stand on.

Do you really think you're fooling anyone here with your empty declarations?

i) You can assert you understand logic, but when you show otherwise, the proof is in the pudding.
ii) You are lying again when you claim that there are no means to validate the concept of an external reality - your denial/refusal to accept them doesn't mean they don't exist - you are not the arbiter, especially given your inability to engage in reason and logic.
iii) You showed the 'trilemma' (which you finally spelled correctly) but you merely assert that it's the case without bothering yourself with showing how it works.
iv) It's you who has shown, time and again throughout this thread, that you simply lack the ability to engage in any substance of the discussion - for example, how you keep asserting you can know you exist, but then failing to write anything other than that assertion.

You need a much softer audience for selling this pap, chap.

Frozenworld wrote:

So far science hasn’t show aspects of existence to be mind dependent. Everything seems to function independently of the mind.

Got QM?

If you’re gonna cite physics you need math. Otherwise there is no reason to take you seriously. Even philosophers know that the interpretations mean little unless you understand the math behind them.

You need math, apparently you identify and feel safe with quantification. I don’t need no stinkin’ math. Philosophers don’t need math either and their interpretations aren’t necessarily conducive to numbers.

Superposition does not apply at all to what you are saying. It’s just addition of two states that yield another state. It has no application whatsoever to solipsism.

You clearly have no clue about superposition or solipsism despite your baseless assertions

All you do is bark assertions without evidence or explanation and when questioned say folks “don’t understand”. There is little value in talking to you because you clearly dont know what you’re talking about or even citing.

See — you are projecting your perceptions . It’s you who clearly don’t know what you are talking about although you believe you do. Why do you want to talk to someone anyway if you can eke no value from them.

The definition of solipsism directly conflicts with your “Thesis” (such as it is). You are asserting other minds, therefor it isn’t solipsism.

Your definition claims to conflict with mine. I posit other minds in superposition which are mind dependent. It doesn’t contradict solipsism at all.

Another point to add how you have no legs to stand on.

Yet another example of how you ignore substantive criticism, quoting several hundred words that you don't even reply to, and simply make another confident declaration.

Frozenworld wrote:

It is true, indeed it is tautologous, to say that all I know falls ... within my experience; that all I know is only known to me as object of my intelligence. But this only means that I can only know it in so far as I subject it to forms projected by my intelligence. It does not mean that its existence depends on my intelligence. Its existence, its givenness, is always there, staring me in the face, pressing in upon me. My very body; my impulses, my cravings, my pangs and my exhilarations; the whole of my being in so far as it is in any way objective, is given, and the function of my intelligence is to redeem that givenness by conferring upon it forms that transform it into intelligible experience indissolubly bound up with the subject: to redeem it, I say, not to negate it.

What is this "IT"? You are assuming there is some thing out there projecting on to you. Why is the function of intelligence to redeem what this alleged IT is giving to you. You keep alluding to something you cannot confirm, it could just be you making all this happen. IT's the same nonsense people who resist solipsism try to say.

Which 'IT' - there are many uses of the pronoun in that paragraph, most of them are what is known in English as a 'dummy pronoun'.

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

A dummy pronoun is a deictic pronoun that fulfills a syntactical requirement without providing a contextually explicit meaning of its referent...

A dummy pronoun is used when a particular verb argument (or preposition) is nonexistent (it could also be unknown, irrelevant, already understood, or otherwise "not to be spoken of directly") but when a reference to the argument (a pronoun) is nevertheless syntactically required. For example, in the phrase "It is obvious that the violence will continue", it is a dummy pronoun, not referring to any agent. Unlike a regular pronoun of English, it cannot be replaced by any noun phrase.

Is that the 'it' you're talking about?

Regardless, how is this supposed to have anything at all to do with the argument, and how are you convincing yourself that this somehow cements your position?

It's perverse, FW. You're so desperate to confirm your bias, you're now reading nonsense into 2 letter pronouns.

Going to keep avoiding it to maintain the pretense you've manufactured for yourself?

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.

IT's the same nonsense people who resist solipsism try to say.

So basically everyone then, because solipsism is remarkably resistible which is why there are basically zero philosophers throughout history who have argued it. By and large, that's because they're not thick, not willfully blinding themselves to substance, and would be obliged to listen to their peers should they seek to publish lest they show themselves stupid.

Incidentally FW, just so you understand this simple point: you don't get to keep declaring yourself winner. I can see you think that's how it works, but it's not actually how it works.

In reality, you've failed to substantiate both your position and your skepticism. You cannot arbitrate both because you've got skin in the game, and because you don't appear to possess the requisite understanding to arbitrate.