Fun fair
Fun run
Fun bags
Fun-da-mental

I don't mean the "I made this" variety of solipsism, I mean that the self-evident simply exists with dependency on your perceptions.
The difference between the self-evident and the non-self-evident is that w/ regards to you and your perceptions the non-self-evident is basically nonexistent. Which is why I'm worried that this might mean it actually is nonexistent.

asdfjkl wrote:I don't mean the "I made this" variety of solipsism, I mean that the self-evident simply exists with dependency on your perceptions.
The difference between the self-evident and the non-self-evident is that w/ regards to you and your perceptions the non-self-evident is basically nonexistent. Which is why I'm worried that this might mean it actually is nonexistent.

Things outside my perceptions are not 'basically non-existent', they are beyond present knowledge There is a self-evident epistemic limitation. This limitation, could potentially conceal an ontological limitation, but I have no reason to suppose that it does.

If I don't look I don't know.
While I look I have current knowledge, presently updating.
If I look away the updates cease and my knowledge is stale, but not necessarily invalidated.
I can resume update at any time by looking again.
Not observing is putting your observational systems on pause.
If any object you perceive turns into a pot of petunias as soon as you look away, and back to its former appearance as you look back at it, you can't know about the petunia-nature of reality. Obviously I include any means of gaining information about objects here, not merely eyesight. Watching a video counts. If you blink the TV becomes petunias. Look back and it is a TV showing the 'normal' world objects you think you recorded.

Petunias, non-existence, a pocket universe, anything at all can be supposed, but here is no justification for supposing anything other than something consistent with what you perceived when you looked. That justification is by no means a proof,but it is reasonable.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Regina wrote:I'm aiming at something different:
If the goose only exists through mental activity, and ceases to exist through not executing a particular mental activity, it should be possible to conjure up said goose. And in physical form, not as a figment of my imagination.
So I feel like a cuppa. hey presto, there it lands on my table. If I feel like roasted goose, yumm, there it is. And not plastic bits with feathers stuck on.

Why does it follow from idealism (that the world, including the goose, is mental) that one should be able to personally cunjure up a physical form?

You just refuted solipsism and idealism but your methods are considered cheating so this will not be acknowledged. You used a little sense and intelligence. Amongst the woo-osophers this amounts to a violation of the UA. Tread carefully! They will call you a materialist or even worse, an ELIMINATIVE materialist!

Not so, she did not refute idealism at all. Its called a strawman, as you well know.

GrahamH wrote:Some prefer to ignore the content and make assumptions about 'the nature of consciousness' as something alien to the content, because it is hard to comprehend the connections from appearances.

Some prefer to ignore a comprehensive and justifiable/irrefutable explanation of existence, even when it has already been given to them in private.

Destroyer wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Some prefer to ignore the content and make assumptions about 'the nature of consciousness' as something alien to the content, because it is hard to comprehend the connections from appearances.

Some prefer to ignore a comprehensive and justifiable/irrefutable explanation of existence, even when it has already been given to them in private.

What? Who?

a comprehensive and justifiable/irrefutable explanation of existence?

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Regina wrote:I'm aiming at something different:
If the goose only exists through mental activity, and ceases to exist through not executing a particular mental activity, it should be possible to conjure up said goose. And in physical form, not as a figment of my imagination.
So I feel like a cuppa. hey presto, there it lands on my table. If I feel like roasted goose, yumm, there it is. And not plastic bits with feathers stuck on.

Why does it follow from idealism (that the world, including the goose, is mental) that one should be able to personally conjure up a physical form?

Of course it doesn't follow that we should be able to do such things, but if such things are just objects of thought, then we have reason to ask why thinking them doesn't make them as 'real' as geese and trees and other aspects of 'the world'.
We can ask why restrictions have been imposed, since our nature is one with a mind that does precisely this thinking onto apparent being, according to Idealism.

You have to make rather lame excuses for this profound disability.

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Some prefer to ignore the content and make assumptions about 'the nature of consciousness' as something alien to the content, because it is hard to comprehend the connections from appearances.

Some prefer to ignore a comprehensive and justifiable/irrefutable explanation of existence, even when it has already been given to them in private.

What? Who?

When the time does eventually come, humanity as a whole will be totally amazed to learn that nothing at all exists except denial.

Destroyer wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Some prefer to ignore the content and make assumptions about 'the nature of consciousness' as something alien to the content, because it is hard to comprehend the connections from appearances.

Some prefer to ignore a comprehensive and justifiable/irrefutable explanation of existence, even when it has already been given to them in private.

What? Who?

When the time does eventually come, humanity as a whole will be totally amazed to learn that nothing at all exists except denial.

Now you are just preaching.

How about a comprehensive and justifiable/irrefutable explanation of existence given in public? Don't be shy.

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
Some prefer to ignore a comprehensive and justifiable/irrefutable explanation of existence, even when it has already been given to them in private.

What? Who?

When the time does eventually come, humanity as a whole will be totally amazed to learn that nothing at all exists except denial.

Now you are just preaching.

How about a comprehensive and justifiable/irrefutable explanation of existence given in public? Don't be shy.

Your memory will have to suffice for now.

Typical preaching. All noise and no content.

deleted post

GrahamH wrote:Typical preaching. All noise and no content.

If I wanted to preach you would sure know about it. It would not involve sermons of dogma, but only that which has supporting evidence and substance.

Destroyer wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Typical preaching. All noise and no content.

If I wanted to preach you would sure know about it. It would not involve sermons of dogma, but only that which has supporting evidence and substance.

Your empty bluster will have to suffice for now.

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Typical preaching. All noise and no content.

If I wanted to preach you would sure know about it. It would not involve sermons of dogma, but only that which has supporting evidence and substance.

Your empty bluster will have to suffice for now.

It sure will.

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Regina wrote:I'm aiming at something different:
If the goose only exists through mental activity, and ceases to exist through not executing a particular mental activity, it should be possible to conjure up said goose. And in physical form, not as a figment of my imagination.
So I feel like a cuppa. hey presto, there it lands on my table. If I feel like roasted goose, yumm, there it is. And not plastic bits with feathers stuck on.

Why does it follow from idealism (that the world, including the goose, is mental) that one should be able to personally conjure up a physical form?

Of course it doesn't follow that we should be able to do such things, but if such things are just objects of thought, then we have reason to ask why thinking them doesn't make them as 'real' as geese and trees and other aspects of 'the world'.
We can ask why restrictions have been imposed, since our nature is one with a mind that does precisely this thinking onto apparent being, according to Idealism.

You have to make rather lame excuses for this profound disability.

So I am happy that you agree the lack of ability to conjure physical things does not refute idealism as SoS wrongly said.

Only a solipsim which has the personal mind as the creator of the mental universe (as distinct from the subjective experience of it) needs to worry about this unfortunate clash between the metaphysics and observed experience.

Idealism with 'uber-mind' type models atributes that to the uber-mind and specifically predicts that the individual can not normally conjure a physical form by 'mind power' magic. The fact that you personally find the uber-mind lame does nothing to lessen the internal consistency of the metaphysical system, nor does it serve to point to a disagreement between the metaphysics and observed experience.
Would you agree?

Tech assistance anyone?
When I use the forum on my wifes new laptop, it has an automatic spell checker that underlines in red my many errors - I thought it was a forum upgrade
Now back on my gaming rig, the spell checking is not happening.
Both use firefox and windows 7.
Is it a plug-in or something, and how do I get it, install it or activate it or what ever I need to do.

Thanks.
LI

Little Idiot wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Why does it follow from idealism (that the world, including the goose, is mental) that one should be able to personally conjure up a physical form?

Of course it doesn't follow that we should be able to do such things, but if such things are just objects of thought, then we have reason to ask why thinking them doesn't make them as 'real' as geese and trees and other aspects of 'the world'.
We can ask why restrictions have been imposed, since our nature is one with a mind that does precisely this thinking onto apparent being, according to Idealism.

You have to make rather lame excuses for this profound disability.

So I am happy that you agree the lack of ability to conjure physical things does not refute idealism as SoS wrongly said.

Only a solipsim which has the personal mind as the creator of the mental universe (as distinct from the subjective experience of it) needs to worry about this unfortunate clash between the metaphysics and observed experience.

Idealism with 'uber-mind' type models atributes that to the uber-mind and specifically predicts that the individual can not normally conjure a physical form by 'mind power' magic. The fact that you personally find the uber-mind lame does nothing to lessen the internal consistency of the metaphysical system, nor does it serve to point to a disagreement between the metaphysics and observed experience.
Would you agree?

Of course I don't agree.

What I find lame is you inventing two entirely different types of 'mind'.
Idealism starts with a premise that 'mind' can generate an idea of something contrary in nature to the 'mind'. Namely you suppose that 'its all mental' and yet can invent a world that appears physical, with limitations and rules that do not apply to the 'mind'.
Of course this is not at all like human minds. If you just said 'its all mental' using the meaning of 'mind' that we know ourselves you wouldn't get anywhere.

As you admit, you have to resort to an 'uber-mind' that can 'conjure a physical form by 'mind power' magic' as a starting premise.
Clearly that constitutes 'a disagreement between the metaphysics and observed experience.' From experience we all know that minds don't 'conjure a physical form by 'mind power' magic' so you have to arbitrarily suppose some different sort of mind and assume it can do such a thing.

Little Idiot wrote:Tech assistance anyone?
When I use the forum on my wifes new laptop, it has an automatic spell checker that underlines in red my many errors - I thought it was a forum upgrade
Now back on my gaming rig, the spell checking is not happening.
Both use firefox and windows 7.
Is it a plug-in or something, and how do I get it, install it or activate it or what ever I need to do.

Thanks.
LI

The spell check should be a browser feature.
Firefox:
Tools...Options...Advanced...General...Check my spelling as I type

GrahamH wrote:
Clearly that constitutes 'a disagreement between the metaphysics and observed experience.' From experience we all know that minds don't 'conjure a physical form by 'mind power' magic' so you have to arbitrarily suppose some different sort of mind and assume it can do such a thing.

And we all know what this mind is called when it's at home.
So we have a one-track (if you excuse the imagery) solipsistic mind that can cause things to stop existing when he/she isn't looking. And we have a two-track mind that, in addition, creates everything through his/her "mind power".