No seriously, are you really under the impression that when you are clearly seeing something, ie white color, it is possible that you are equally clearly seeing something pitch black?

asdfjkl wrote:No seriously, are you really under the impression that when you are clearly seeing something, ie white color, it is possible that you are equally clearly seeing something pitch black?

Me, I see a beige-y shade of mauve, dear.

You dare to presume to arrogate upon yourself to tell me what I see? That's a good trick. Wish I could do it.

If the world is actually just as you perceive, then <<presto!>> you have a license to tell other people they're wrong.

Regina wrote:

BlackBart wrote:This thread is irrefutably going nowhere.

But at least it's going somewhere.

That's refutable.

Cito di Pense wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:No seriously, are you really under the impression that when you are clearly seeing something, ie white color, it is possible that you are equally clearly seeing something pitch black?

Me, I see a beige-y shade of mauve, dear.

You dare to presume to arrogate upon yourself to tell me what I see? That's a good trick. Wish I could do it.

If the world is actually just as you perceive, then <<presto!>> you have a license to tell other people they're wrong.

But when you're seeing it it's still clearly not bright blue.
So that is irrefutable.

asdfjkl wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:No seriously, are you really under the impression that when you are clearly seeing something, ie white color, it is possible that you are equally clearly seeing something pitch black?

Me, I see a beige-y shade of mauve, dear.

You dare to presume to arrogate upon yourself to tell me what I see? That's a good trick. Wish I could do it.

If the world is actually just as you perceive, then <<presto!>> you have a license to tell other people they're wrong.

But when you're seeing it it's still clearly not bright blue.

And you know this how, exactly? The answer is, you don't. I could be lying. So desist.

asdfjkl wrote:So that is irrefutable.

I cannot take credit for the following, but it completely refutes your hopeless wibble:

Mallomar McGerbil wrote:On the abstraction of consciousness see Bruno Alday-Zucker's brilliant 1200-page thesis on The Spirit of Hydrocarbons. Alday-Zucker worked for 50 years as an organic chemist in an unproductive series of laboratory experiments. A vision prompted him to change the direction of his work whereupon he produced his masterwork. See also Methane and Consciousness by Algernon Porque-Kuttlett which supplements Alday-Zucker's work

The negative and rather raucous work by I. V. Schitz, Archetypes of Flatulence, is an attempt to undo the good work of Alday-Zucker and Porque-Kuttlett. All serious students of consciousness should avoid it.

More from McGerbil:

{consider} Alexbert Q. Thoon's well known Minds of the Periodic Table, so that we can contemplate some of the differences in the ways different elements think and feel. Consciousness is diverse. Being argon feels very different from being iron. And being potassium is yet another cup of tea. Uranium tells us, "Bring lots of tomato juice because I've got hot coppers!" Imagine, a perpetual hangover! Then copper grins a silly grin and laughs hebephrenically. You know, they're not all sane. Hydrogen appears normal, but when it spies oxygen it goes berserk. Oxygen always says, "Who, me?" And then sodium and chlorine -- a perpetual coupling. They shouldn't do that in public! Disgusting!!!!

Organic chemistry? Well, that explains a lot!

Regina wrote:Organic chemistry? Well, that explains a lot!

Please. Organo-metallic chemistry. Only one of the reasons you have to change the oil in your automobile engine.

Hey, I've seen organic chemists close up.

Regina wrote:Hey, I've seen organic chemists close up.

More than I can say. The fumes they breathe in the lab. Their children come out looking like beach balls.

That assumes they can have children after years in labs without functional exhaust hoods.

Yes, but in your perspective there are irrefutable things are there not.
Lemme get this straight, you believe that nothing is irrefutable, is that it? Because that is definitely false.
Using semantics to disprove it doesn't work, semantics are based on what is evident not the other way around.

Yes, but in your perspective there are irrefutable things are there not.
Lemme get this straight, you believe that nothing is irrefutable, is that it? Because that is definitely false.
Using semantics to disprove it doesn't work, semantics are based on what is evident not the other way around.

I think asdfjkl is saying that what you observe is irrefutable to yourself, he doesn't mean that what you see is true or real.

If I hallucinate the flying spaghetti monster it would be irrefutable that I see it, even though it doesn't really exist. The same being with everything else. It is irrefutable that I am experiencing perceptions that seem like an outside world, yet that outside world might not really exist.

@jamest - in asdfjkl's idea, if observations were only creatings of the Self, then that would be positing a non-evident subconscious. That is why he says the observations are self-existent. The only things evident to exist are the conscious (aware) Self, and the experiences/observational input. I picture the scenario as two pieces of film facing each other in a pool of nothingness. One piece of film = the aware/conscious Self, the other = the experiential input.

I find I agree with asdfjkl, but I don't see how subjective experiences being evident is scary in any way. If anything is somewhat disturbing, it's the fact that nothing else is certain (which frankly doesn't bother me anymore either).

Yep, that's what I'm trying to say. Do the members of the forum agree on that, at least?

asdfjkl wrote:Yep, that's what I'm trying to say. Do the members of the forum agree on that, at least?

I find I cannot limit the concept of 'refutation' to conversations in which I am ONLY talking to myself. I just do not use the word that way.

Example conversation I have with myself:

But I refuted that one hours ago!

Am I sure?

Yes, absolutely!

No. I'm not! I refuted that one hours ago!

No I didn't!

Did so!

Not!

Did so!

Oh, I guess I did, then.

I didn't either!...

Indeed, self, I did...

Did not!

...

Lobar wrote:I don't see how subjective experiences being evident is scary in any way.

I don't care much for anecdotes about what we find 'scary'. People use ghost stories to scare themselves. This so fucks with the notion of 'evident' that it is not funny at all. See also, hauntology, which is a pun about 'ontology'. Just see above...

I don't see how they are evidently scary.

Yes, I do....

Yes, the scary part is when I think that subjective experiences are the ONLY thing that exists. because they are the only evident irrefutable things. Which leads to solipsism (regular and temporal altho more regular)

asdfjkl wrote:Yes, the scary part is when I think that subjective experiences are the ONLY thing that exists. because they are the only evident irrefutable things. Which leads to solipsism (regular and temporal altho more regular)

Yes, well, your assumption that those subjective experiences are the only evident/irrefutable things is what leads you to think that subjective experiences are the only thing that exists. You have one kind of faulty thinking producing another, and we'll just agree to let that be your own show. Enough already with making your conclusion of solipsism from a faulty premise anyone's problem but your own. Your faulty premises are only irrefutable if you are already a solipsist. You're going in circles.

Can you give me an example of anything evident that isn't a subjective experience?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Yes, well, your assumption that those subjective experiences are the only evident/irrefutable things is what leads you to think that subjective experiences are the only thing that exists. You have one kind of faulty thinking producing another, and we'll just agree to let that be your own show. Enough already with making your conclusion of solipsism from a faulty premise anyone's problem but your own. Your faulty premises are only irrefutable if you are already a solipsist. You're going in circles.

I will side with asdfjkl on this one. How would you refute subjective experiences? It seems pretty certain to me that I am looking at what seems to be my laptop right now. At least an image that looks like a physical laptop. How can I possibly refute that?

And I don't see why refutability has to deal with one person refuting another person.

Lobar wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Yes, well, your assumption that those subjective experiences are the only evident/irrefutable things is what leads you to think that subjective experiences are the only thing that exists. You have one kind of faulty thinking producing another, and we'll just agree to let that be your own show. Enough already with making your conclusion of solipsism from a faulty premise anyone's problem but your own. Your faulty premises are only irrefutable if you are already a solipsist. You're going in circles.

I will side with asdfjkl on this one. How would you refute subjective experiences? It seems pretty certain to me that I am looking at what seems to be my laptop right now. At least an image that looks like a physical laptop. How can I possibly refute that?

And I don't see why refutability has to deal with one person refuting another person.

Read the first sentence in Cito's post again. There's a reason why he uses italics.