On Idealism, repeated

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

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#341  Postby BlackBart » Sep 21, 2021 8:56 am

You'd think the one consciousness in the Universe could avoid being made to look stupid by an NPC. :coffee:

How did Wagner's ring cycle come into existence if there was no Wagner to write it, FW? What was the mechanism involved in paraphrasing the Norse sagas it's based on? How were the chord progressions and tempo etc. autonomously generated? And how would that explanation be any more parsimonious than a bloke named Wagner wrote it?

Same question goes for the millions of other books, pieces of music, and works of art automatically generated for the off-chance you might get around to using them before you puff out of existence?

On the subject of puffing out of existence, still waiting for an answer on the death thing. Not sure why - if yours is the most parsimonious scenario, it'll be a no-brainer to explain.

Edit: Come to think of it, how did this post come to be, FW? Did you write it?
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12434
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#342  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 21, 2021 1:28 pm

BlackBart wrote:
Edit: Come to think of it, how did this post come to be, FW? Did you write it?


It's more parsimonious, dude.
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: 28951
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#343  Postby BlackBart » Sep 21, 2021 3:07 pm

Was that before or after he knocked out 'Girls just want to have fun'?
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12434
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#344  Postby Greg the Grouper » Sep 21, 2021 4:13 pm

Time is a construct of our primitive non-minds.
Greg the Grouper
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 70

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

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#345  Postby newolder » Sep 21, 2021 4:34 pm

Did Frozenworld come up with this idea too?
Image

iirc, today is the caek-day of spacetime too... :cheers: :party:
Image
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7405
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#346  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 21, 2021 6:14 pm

newolder wrote:Did Frozenworld come up with this idea too?


You're all missing the point, of course, as FW has told you maaaany times.

Using the exact same logic, we all obviously exist too for exactly the same reasons. A universe of solipsists creating a universe together. Warming, really.
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: 28951
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#347  Postby BlackBart » Sep 21, 2021 6:39 pm

Greg the Grouper wrote:Time is a construct of our primitive non-minds.


Lunchtime doubly so.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12434
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#348  Postby Greg the Grouper » Sep 21, 2021 7:11 pm

BlackBart wrote:
Greg the Grouper wrote:Time is a construct of our primitive non-minds.


Lunchtime doubly so.


Am I more or less real for being hungry?
Greg the Grouper
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 70

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

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#349  Postby newolder » Sep 21, 2021 7:32 pm

Thinking about food and including the "midnight snack that lasts anything up to 8 hours", Sarah Millican accounts for a real feast of a day by listing its meals...
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7405
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#350  Postby Frozenworld » Sep 28, 2021 1:34 am

BlackBart wrote:You'd think the one consciousness in the Universe could avoid being made to look stupid by an NPC. :coffee:

How did Wagner's ring cycle come into existence if there was no Wagner to write it, FW? What was the mechanism involved in paraphrasing the Norse sagas it's based on? How were the chord progressions and tempo etc. autonomously generated? And how would that explanation be any more parsimonious than a bloke named Wagner wrote it?

Same question goes for the millions of other books, pieces of music, and works of art automatically generated for the off-chance you might get around to using them before you puff out of existence?

On the subject of puffing out of existence, still waiting for an answer on the death thing. Not sure why - if yours is the most parsimonious scenario, it'll be a no-brainer to explain.

Edit: Come to think of it, how did this post come to be, FW? Did you write it?


I think there was a response to all that by the solipsists that addresses it. It's still saying that you don't have knowledge of everything made and neither do you need it. If it is all in your own head and you are making this, you'd be omitting things from your knowledge to give the appearance of ignorance. Again all you can know is that you exist for sure, nothing and no one else. I know I wrote my posts but I can't be sure there is a you out there and some part of my mind isn't writing all this to me. There doesn't need to be a mechanism, since it's existence can't be verified. All I can be sure of is me and nothing else.

It's not something I want to believe but what reason would I have to believe those other people exist and aren't just figments? Nothing you have said really proves your case and solipsism wrong, I know I've tried that argument already.

Even our own vision is virtual so how can we claim to know reality: https://www.wired.com/story/the-physics ... ual-world/
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 80

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#351  Postby Greg the Grouper » Sep 28, 2021 2:43 am

I'm actually a little mad that "I both do and do not possess this knowledge" is being posited as a more reasonable position than "things outside of myself exist".
Greg the Grouper
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 70

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

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#352  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 28, 2021 3:28 am

Frozenworld wrote:
I think there was a response to all that by the solipsists that addresses it. It's still saying that you don't have knowledge of everything made and neither do you need it. If it is all in your own head and you are making this, you'd be omitting things from your knowledge to give the appearance of ignorance.


How artfully you work to resolve any possibility of your woolly notion potentially being falsifiable.

You might as well be telling us to believe in Yahweh, or pixies, or any of the numerous other decrepit off-the-shelf belief systems.

Bad ideas always invest more energy in explaining away their failings than they offer explanatory power.


Frozenworld wrote: Again all you can know is that you exist for sure...


Again, all you can do is assert this because you've certainly never offered a jot of justification for your certainty here. Of course, I've pointed this out to you a dozen times, and of course, you've never once bothered to engage it.


Frozenworld wrote:I know I wrote my posts but I can't be sure there is a you out there and some part of my mind isn't writing all this to me.


Yeah, you're just not competent at all.

Using exactly the same 'logic' you've ineptly been trotting out, it's just as valid for you to believe that you are just a figment of my imagination, and I'm the one creating experiences you think you've had, but they're there just to produce sufficient context to convince myself that you are independent of me.

You can't answer this. You never will be able to.



Frozenworld wrote: There doesn't need to be a mechanism, since it's existence can't be verified. All I can be sure of is me and nothing else.


No different than a Christian asserting that the one thing they know is that God exists - it's presuppositional, and you've not submitted it to any level of scrutiny at all.... we all know that, and we've all pointed it out to you, and you've failed at each opportunity to address it.


Frozenworld wrote:It's not something I want to believe...


Then maybe that's because I want you to believe it because you're just a figment of my imaginative construction I've concocted for my own purposes. You've no ability to challenge this, so it must be true.

As usual, your own twisting and turning exposes how little thought you've really applied to your supposed belief.

Rather, I would say it's absolutely crystal clear that you believe this expressly because you want to believe it, and have bugger all logical justification for doing so. I assume that you're no different than others with these silly little belief systems - you believe it because you think it makes you special, and an original thinker. It doesn't.


Frozenworld wrote:...but what reason would I have to believe those other people exist and aren't just figments?


It's been explained to you in spades - if you've not grasped it yet, the chances that more words are going to change your mind and make you stop this dopey shit is practically zero. As has already been pointed out to you - if you can employ this 'logic', then presumably everyone else can too, meaning the world is still populated by a bunch of individual people. Alternatively, as has also been explained to you - according to your own position, you can not have any degree of certainty that you aren't just a figment of my imagination.

Can you address these honestly? No, of course you can't. Either you're not here to engage in honest discourse, or you're so enamoured off the stupid shit you're spouting that your cognitive bias deflects this belief-shattering ordnance as you're too fragile to process it with integrity.


Frozenworld wrote:Nothing you have said really proves your case and solipsism wrong, I know I've tried that argument already.


In reality, your argument's had its pants pulled down and its arse spanked red raw in public, leaving it sniveling and screeching woefully.


Frozenworld wrote:Even our own vision is virtual...


No it's not.


Frozenworld wrote: so how can we claim to know reality


We don't need to claim to know reality; but we can dismiss things that are provably inept or useless, provably false, and provably inconsistent with any cogent understanding. Carrying around cherished bad ideas is anathema to ever having a chance of even a reasonable approximation of reality.
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: 28951
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#353  Postby Frozenworld » Sep 29, 2021 12:38 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:
I think there was a response to all that by the solipsists that addresses it. It's still saying that you don't have knowledge of everything made and neither do you need it. If it is all in your own head and you are making this, you'd be omitting things from your knowledge to give the appearance of ignorance.


How artfully you work to resolve any possibility of your woolly notion potentially being falsifiable.

You might as well be telling us to believe in Yahweh, or pixies, or any of the numerous other decrepit off-the-shelf belief systems.

Bad ideas always invest more energy in explaining away their failings than they offer explanatory power.


Frozenworld wrote: Again all you can know is that you exist for sure...


Again, all you can do is assert this because you've certainly never offered a jot of justification for your certainty here. Of course, I've pointed this out to you a dozen times, and of course, you've never once bothered to engage it.


Frozenworld wrote:I know I wrote my posts but I can't be sure there is a you out there and some part of my mind isn't writing all this to me.


Yeah, you're just not competent at all.

Using exactly the same 'logic' you've ineptly been trotting out, it's just as valid for you to believe that you are just a figment of my imagination, and I'm the one creating experiences you think you've had, but they're there just to produce sufficient context to convince myself that you are independent of me.

You can't answer this. You never will be able to.



Frozenworld wrote: There doesn't need to be a mechanism, since it's existence can't be verified. All I can be sure of is me and nothing else.


No different than a Christian asserting that the one thing they know is that God exists - it's presuppositional, and you've not submitted it to any level of scrutiny at all.... we all know that, and we've all pointed it out to you, and you've failed at each opportunity to address it.


Frozenworld wrote:It's not something I want to believe...


Then maybe that's because I want you to believe it because you're just a figment of my imaginative construction I've concocted for my own purposes. You've no ability to challenge this, so it must be true.

As usual, your own twisting and turning exposes how little thought you've really applied to your supposed belief.

Rather, I would say it's absolutely crystal clear that you believe this expressly because you want to believe it, and have bugger all logical justification for doing so. I assume that you're no different than others with these silly little belief systems - you believe it because you think it makes you special, and an original thinker. It doesn't.


Frozenworld wrote:...but what reason would I have to believe those other people exist and aren't just figments?


It's been explained to you in spades - if you've not grasped it yet, the chances that more words are going to change your mind and make you stop this dopey shit is practically zero. As has already been pointed out to you - if you can employ this 'logic', then presumably everyone else can too, meaning the world is still populated by a bunch of individual people. Alternatively, as has also been explained to you - according to your own position, you can not have any degree of certainty that you aren't just a figment of my imagination.

Can you address these honestly? No, of course you can't. Either you're not here to engage in honest discourse, or you're so enamoured off the stupid shit you're spouting that your cognitive bias deflects this belief-shattering ordnance as you're too fragile to process it with integrity.


Frozenworld wrote:Nothing you have said really proves your case and solipsism wrong, I know I've tried that argument already.


In reality, your argument's had its pants pulled down and its arse spanked red raw in public, leaving it sniveling and screeching woefully.


Frozenworld wrote:Even our own vision is virtual...


No it's not.


Frozenworld wrote: so how can we claim to know reality


We don't need to claim to know reality; but we can dismiss things that are provably inept or useless, provably false, and provably inconsistent with any cogent understanding. Carrying around cherished bad ideas is anathema to ever having a chance of even a reasonable approximation of reality.


Because when it comes down to it all, the whole thing is unfalsifiable. There is simply no way to test whether the world you experience is all in your head or not.

And yes our vision is virtual as the article describes.

Bad ideas always invest more energy in explaining away their failings than they offer explanatory power.


This is pretty much realism. It keeps adding external entities that it can't prove the existence of in order to say that a world outside our heads exists. But it cannot prove the existence of such things. It's something I personally want to be the case but I cannot prove it.

You can't dismiss solipsism by the criteria that you claim. The usefulness of a claim has no bearing on whether it is true or not. It's like believing you'll live a long life, even though you really have no proof of that. Useful? Yes. True? No way to know. That's not a metric to dismiss things.

You keep calling it a bad idea but in fact it's the one problem no one (and to this day still hasn't) gotten over. Because all we have is our experience and little else. There is a reason the idea has been so popular some write books on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusions_(Bach_novel)

Solipsism is perhaps the most consistent explanation for things because it can at least prove the existence of the entity responsible for them, you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Solipsism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 80

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#354  Postby Greg the Grouper » Sep 29, 2021 1:37 am

There is an action, X.

Action X is defined as an action which you did not take.

Action X exists, and is easily demonstrable: this post is an example of action X.

Assuming a scenario where you are all that exists, and that all you experience is little more than a product of your own mind, it would follow that you created this post.

Since we know that the assumed scenario has created a situation where you both did and did not create this post, we can therefore discount the assumed scenario, as it violates noncontradiction.

Now I'll go imagine a scenario where you're competent enough to actually explain some sort of reasoning.
Greg the Grouper
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 70

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

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#355  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 29, 2021 2:52 am

Because when it comes down to it all, the whole thing is unfalsifiable


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

In the philosophy of science, a theory is falsifiable (or refutable) if it is contradicted by an observation that is logically possible, i.e., expressible in the language of the theory, and this language has a conventional empirical interpretation.[A] Thus there must exist a state of affairs, a potential falsifier, that obtains or not and can be used as a scientific evidence against the theory, in particular, it must be observable with existing technologies. For example, "All swans are white" is falsifiable, because "Here is a black swan" contradicts it.[B] To make falsifiability more intuitive, one can assume that the potential falsifier is allowed by some other law than the one that is falsified. For example, Newton's law of gravitation is also falsifiable—it is falsified by "The brick fell upwards when released",[1][C] which is a state of affairs that can be observed if some hidden force other than gravity acts on the brick.[D] On the other hand, "All men are mortal" is not falsifiable, because, unlike a swan being black, a man being immortal is not an inter-subjective property—there is no shared procedure to systematically conclude to immortality.[2][3]


When your pet idea is unfalsifiable, it's not really an idea: it's a fantasy you fancy.

And yes, you once again ignored all the challenges to your tawdry nonsense, repeated yourself, and are clearly completely close-minded and have no honest interest in any form of discussion. You're here to preach, but no one's buying because it's just plain useless.
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: 28951
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#356  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 29, 2021 2:53 am

And yes our vision is virtual as the article describes.


No, it's not, and no it doesn't - perhaps read more than the title?

It's very obvious you selectively pick and choose what you want to hear - anything that appears to corroborate your half-baked position you latch onto - and you dismiss without substance or engagement anything that doesn't conform.

You're basically a religionist, just without the funny hat and the weight of tradition.
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: 28951
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#357  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 29, 2021 2:55 am

Solipsism is perhaps the most consistent explanation for things because it can at least prove the existence of the entity responsible for them, you.


Silly. Really silly.

There's a concept called 'not even wrong'. I'm not convinced you even achieve that.

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

"Not even wrong" is a phrase often used to describe pseudoscience or bad science.[1] It describes an argument or explanation that purports to be scientific but uses faulty reasoning or speculative premises, which can be neither affirmed nor denied and thus cannot be discussed rigorously and scientifically.[1]

For a meaningful discussion on whether a certain statement is true or false, the statement must satisfy the criterion of falsifiability, the inherent possibility for the statement to be tested and found false. In this sense, the phrase "not even wrong" is synonymous with "unfalsifiable."[1]


You're clearly unaware of how useless it actually is to contrive ad hoc contentions to attempt to explain away the failings of your position. But no one else here is so handicapped in the exercise of logic and reason.
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: 28951
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#358  Postby BlackBart » Oct 08, 2021 12:04 pm

Frozenworld wrote:
BlackBart wrote:You'd think the one consciousness in the Universe could avoid being made to look stupid by an NPC. :coffee:

How did Wagner's ring cycle come into existence if there was no Wagner to write it, FW? What was the mechanism involved in paraphrasing the Norse sagas it's based on? How were the chord progressions and tempo etc. autonomously generated? And how would that explanation be any more parsimonious than a bloke named Wagner wrote it?

Same question goes for the millions of other books, pieces of music, and works of art automatically generated for the off-chance you might get around to using them before you puff out of existence?

On the subject of puffing out of existence, still waiting for an answer on the death thing. Not sure why - if yours is the most parsimonious scenario, it'll be a no-brainer to explain.

Edit: Come to think of it, how did this post come to be, FW? Did you write it?


I think there was a response to all that by the solipsists that addresses it.



I'm not asking other solipsists (lol) I'm asking you.


It's still saying that you don't have knowledge of everything made and neither do you need it.


How very fucking convenient.


If it is all in your own head and you are making this, you'd be omitting things from your knowledge to give the appearance of ignorance.


What the fuck for? Who the fuck would you be trying to fool? :lol:


Again all you can know is that you exist for sure, nothing and no one else. I know I wrote my posts but I can't be sure there is a you out there and some part of my mind isn't writing all this to me.


What mind? As your 'mind' is a few pounds of grey matter that only exists in this supposed Matrix, you don't actually have a mind. Unless you're trying to erect a mind that's floating around in a void. Which is basically erecting a deity.



There doesn't need to be a mechanism, since it's existence can't be verified.


You REALLY are not very good at this are you? Unless you're positing everything popped into existence by magic then yes, there has to be a mechanism. Trying handwave away gaping holes in your argument is lazy and dishonest.


All I can be sure of is me and nothing else.


Really? How can you be sure of you? Show your working.


It's not something I want to believe but what reason would I have to believe those other people exist and aren't just figments?


A figment of what in what?

Nothing you have said really proves your case and solipsism wrong,


I don't have to - I'm not the one making the claim. You are. So far you've failed pathetically.


I know I've tried that argument already.


No you haven't. You've failed to make any kind of argument. Only vague assertions.

Even our own vision is virtual so how can we claim to know reality: https://www.wired.com/story/the-physics ... ual-world/


Spearthrower has already pull this apart like wet toilet paper.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12434
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#359  Postby Greg the Grouper » Oct 08, 2021 12:29 pm

It makes much more sense to assume that one can maintain a totally pointless appearance of ignorance by never allowing themselves access to knowledge they already possess. Obviously.
Greg the Grouper
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 70

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

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#360  Postby BlackBart » Oct 08, 2021 4:10 pm

Greg the Grouper wrote:It makes much more sense to assume that one can maintain a totally pointless appearance of ignorance by never allowing themselves access to knowledge they already possess. Obviously.


:teef: Obviously.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12434
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest