Greg the Grouper wrote:

Frozenworld wrote:If evidence is meant to be testable then you have none for an external and objective reality then because everything is just sensory data and might not exist outside of you.

What do you think the terms "observable" and "testable" mean?

He's just attempted to render false the mountains of empirical evidence contrary to his position.

Imagine believing in something so stupid that you have to pretend that evidence cannot even exist to contradict your utterly inane belief system.

And supposedly, FW's gone from skepticism about solipsism, to frothing fundie just within a few months.

Spearthrower wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:

Frozenworld wrote:If evidence is meant to be testable then you have none for an external and objective reality then because everything is just sensory data and might not exist outside of you.

What do you think the terms "observable" and "testable" mean?

He's just attempted to render false the mountains of empirical evidence contrary to his position.

Imagine believing in something so stupid that you have to pretend that evidence cannot even exist to contradict your utterly inane belief system.

And supposedly, FW's gone from skepticism about solipsism, to frothing fundie just within a few months.

I dunno. Maybe we should just report and forget about this convo?

Spearthrower wrote:
Imagine believing in something so stupid that you have to pretend that evidence cannot even exist to contradict your utterly inane belief system.

There's a simple explanation for how somebody comes on the internet and builds this claim that the concept of evidence is nonsense, and that's somebody who's been to school and who didn't do well in science classes. This is not uncommon. There are other possible explanations, of course, perhaps involving psychopathology, but let's not go there, since we're not diagnosticians. FW may have been traumatized by his experiences in science class, and hopes to render these experiences null and void in a world in which observation is impossible. Solipsism means no one observed FW failing basic science. FW experienced something, but it was just a brain fart.

So essentially, FW wants to render this forum obsolete, because there can be no rational skepticism ever in accordance with his contentions.

I'm not yet sure what it is we're supposed to believe in, but this state of suspended disbelief of everything other than what the claimant wants you to believe is basically what cults try to instill in their adherents.

No thanks chap - not buying whatever dross it is that you're selling.

Spearthrower wrote:So essentially, FW wants to render this forum obsolete, because there can be no rational skepticism ever in accordance with his contentions.

I'm not yet sure what it is we're supposed to believe in, but this state of suspended disbelief of everything other than what the claimant wants you to believe is basically what cults try to instill in their adherents.

No thanks chap - not buying whatever dross it is that you're selling.

That's VFT. But FW is not selling anything, not even weight-loss, in case you saw my post on Gwen Shamblin Lara. So at best, FW is a cult member who got himself lost on the way to a prayer meeting because he doesn't believe there are any directions out there. This kind of cult is bound to have cult members dropping off the radar like Malaysian airliners. Some slow, some fast, in case that bus coming along is just a mental construct. If it's the RatSkep forum he wants to vaporize, he has more control over that in his solipsistic reverie than he gives himself credit for. He strikes me very much as a "have your cake and eat it" type.

Come to think of it, weight loss is a great test for solipsism. Some of it, plus the rest of it, equals all of it.

Spearthrower wrote:Yeah, I mean its not like we're allowed to use our eyes to observe... that'd be cheating!

Oh, and no, you've never once shown that the senses are so suspect as to warrant considering everything they produce to be illusory - that's just your religious belief system.

Absent light, for example, having silly little balls of jelly to perceive that light, focus it, and transmit the resulting picture to the brain would be very difficult to explain.

Have you bothered EVER to address ANY of these problems? No, of course you haven't. You write a declarative sentence and then strut about with your chest puffed out as if you've done the hard work already. It's a clownshow FW, and you're the clown.

And then we have:

Spearthrower wrote:Some people are still treating FW as if he's prepared to engage in honest discussion - this isn't warranted, it's bad faith from the ground up.

Assuming we do have a real world beyond our perception.

We have evidence that FW's neural pathways have formed and the relative strengths of those pathways are a result of that external reality. It's not FW's fault that his electrons and ions are not flowing along the generally accepted neural pathways.

So I see no reason not to be nice to FW. His neural pathways are making him be like he is.

romansh wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Yeah, I mean its not like we're allowed to use our eyes to observe... that'd be cheating!

Oh, and no, you've never once shown that the senses are so suspect as to warrant considering everything they produce to be illusory - that's just your religious belief system.

Absent light, for example, having silly little balls of jelly to perceive that light, focus it, and transmit the resulting picture to the brain would be very difficult to explain.

Have you bothered EVER to address ANY of these problems? No, of course you haven't. You write a declarative sentence and then strut about with your chest puffed out as if you've done the hard work already. It's a clownshow FW, and you're the clown.

And then we have:

Spearthrower wrote:Some people are still treating FW as if he's prepared to engage in honest discussion - this isn't warranted, it's bad faith from the ground up.

Assuming we do have a real world beyond our perception.

We have evidence that FW's neural pathways have formed and the relative strengths of those pathways are a result of that external reality. It's not FW's fault that his electrons and ions are not flowing along the generally accepted neural pathways.

So I see no reason not to be nice to FW. His neural pathways are making him be like he is.

We have evidence that FW's neural pathways have formed and the relative strengths of those pathways are a result of that external reality. It's not FW's fault that his electrons and ions are not flowing along the generally accepted neural pathways.

Assumed external reality, there is nothing to suggest that to be true. In fact the bigger question is why is one's brain predisposed to thinking "not solipsism" so to speak. The answer is bias as this shows:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2108438

Frozenworld wrote:Assumed external reality, there is nothing to suggest that to be true. In fact the bigger question is why is one's brain predisposed to thinking "not solipsism" so to speak. The answer is bias as this shows:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2108438

Why are you pretending to know what 'predisposed' means?

Frozenworld wrote:
Assumed external reality, there is nothing to suggest that to be true. In fact the bigger question is why is one's brain predisposed to thinking "not solipsism" so to speak. The answer is bias as this shows:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2108438

Somebody's putting an awful lot of work into solipsism and predisposing somebody to solipsism. It's worth a ponder or two to ask why nobody's putting this much work into persuading idiots like this that external reality is worth considering.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Frozenworld wrote:
Assumed external reality, there is nothing to suggest that to be true. In fact the bigger question is why is one's brain predisposed to thinking "not solipsism" so to speak. The answer is bias as this shows:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2108438

Somebody's putting an awful lot of work into solipsism and predisposing somebody to solipsism. It's worth a ponder or two to ask why nobody's putting this much work into persuading idiots like this that external reality is worth considering.

Correction; we're all fake and this convo is just FW gaslighting himself.

If there's no terrain, where's the map coming from, FW?

First think really hard, then the world will simply bend itself to your will.

You can be anything you want to be.

You can change the world!

Frozenworld wrote:
Assumed external reality, there is nothing to suggest that to be true.

So you repeatedly assert, offering no substantiation, and refusing to acknowledge the litany of contentions to your claim.

Ergo....

Frozenworld wrote:In fact the bigger question is why is one's brain predisposed to thinking "not solipsism" so to speak.

Support for this assertion?

None, yeah of course.

Frozenworld wrote:The answer is bias as this shows:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2108438

The paper doesn't lend itself to your argument - quite the opposite in fact, it talks about abductive reasoning and how the most effective explanation co-relates multiple lines of evidence into a single explanation (of there being something out there).

I already cited excerpts from this paper 20 pages back, which you - of course - ignored.

In fact, on page 13 of this thread - post 256...

Spearthrower wrote:

Frozenworld wrote:
Also you have to wonder why our brains by default assume solipsism false: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2108438

Whether our brains do or don't is irrelevant given the litany of reasoning proferred in this thread which you've catastrophically failed to engage, let alone counter.

Why do we have beliefs about the world outside our own minds?

Quite simply because the world outside our own mind keeps impinging on our mind. Minds that fail to acknowledge this reality are dysfunctional minds.

Now what is the 4th word in the 2nd paragraph of page 3 of your link?

So you're just repeating yourself again, ignoring all responses, and it's fucking obvious you've never even read the paper you're citing.

Feel you no shame, FW? Are you managing somehow to convince yourself that you're credible?

And from page 14....

Hermit wrote:

Frozenworld wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Almost as if our senses can cross-corroborate one and other, and that intersubjective-verifiability alone provides ample reason for abandoning any credence in the entirely empty appeals to solipsism.

You have to stop at OTHER because you cannot verify that.

You have to stop at "you". as well as the other pronouns in your post I quoted earlier.

Frozenworld wrote:Also you have to wonder why our brains by default assume solipsism false: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2108438

That's an easy one. "Why do we have beliefs about the world outside our own minds?" the author asks rhetorically. Had you read the entire chapter* you would have realised that Soper's answer is "because nonsolipsism is useful".

*Soper Elliott, From a Biological Point of View: Essays in Evolutionary Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 28 - 48

This is actually mendacious behavior, FW. It's bad enough ignoring responses to just parrot out your 1 liner yet again, but pretending a paper says something it clearly doesn't, refusing to engage in criticism of your mendacious claims, then repeating it all again later indicates a pattern of a) intellectual laziness and b) a predilection for lying to others.

In effect, FW, the membership here places no trust in you as a person, and you are in effect being laughed out of the room because you have no credibility at all remaining.

Frozenworld wrote:In fact the bigger question is why is one's brain predisposed to thinking "not solipsism" so to speak. The answer is bias as this shows:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2108438

No, the answer is this little thing known in those circles in which epistemology is by minds both serious and trivial as 'the overwhelming preponderance of available evidence', though in this case, we're talking about ALL the available evidence.

Greg the Grouper wrote:

Frozenworld wrote:Assumed external reality, there is nothing to suggest that to be true. In fact the bigger question is why is one's brain predisposed to thinking "not solipsism" so to speak. The answer is bias as this shows:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2108438

Why are you pretending to know what 'predisposed' means?

It means 'bias'. FW has stated that some predisposition is the result of bias. This is similar to saying that wetting yourself is the result of pissing your pants.

LOL? No, behold the mighty genius that is Frozenworld, who might as well say that bias is the result of predisposition. A = A. He was saving that one up for several weeks, just getting himself ready to throw that one haymaker punch and create a breeze.

Well, they say tautology is the study of tension...

Frozenworld wrote:the bigger question is why is one's brain predisposed to thinking "not solipsism"

A brain-teaser for you, FW: Under solipsism, where is "one's brain" located? Under not-solipsism, this is less of a problem.

Frozenworld wrote:
Assumed external reality, there is nothing to suggest that to be true.

Interesting, you replied to my post to Spearthrower despite there being no evidence that such a post exists.

FW's trying to get a full-house in self-refutation bingo.