Posted: Aug 30, 2021 5:49 pm
First, I'd like to clarify that FW doesn't actually have an argument. He has a position which he has stated several times, and has shown unwilling to address rational challenges to. My sense is that this is precisely the problem: he is quite unable to provide an argument for his position, which is why he keeps repeating the same irrelevances.
However, it is certainly justifiable to contend that what I wrote above arises from his position, at least in the context of what he's written in this thread, rather than just picking a sentence out of one single post.
romansh wrote:For me it is more like he can't be absolutely positive there is a reality beyond his perception.
Then it necessarily is not 'perception' at all. Else, what is it that's being 'perceived'? An external reality? Or is the sole perceiver not just conjuring an external reality, but also convincing itself that it perceives too? It's turtles all the way down. I don't quite see why it's our job to supply further Testudines on his behalf?
Further, there has never been even an attempt to substantiate how we might rationally consider the existence of all others thing an 'assumption', singular, and were such an argument made, it would be irremediably flawed.
To recapitulate one's entire life and every single experience therein as one point - a singular assumption - which is then either unwittingly acquiesced to as true or not is unjustified, and I should think, unjustifiable.
Of course, even then, there are still further hurdles to cross if one were making such an argument, such as how those numerous experiences necessarily constitute a kind of proof which thereby obviates the notion of the term 'assumption'.
I would recommend against filling in holes in FW's position with your own arguments. Steel manning is commendable, but there has to actually be an argument there first to then best represent, whereas we've had no such substance at all.
romansh wrote:It is an assumption I happily make everyday, and to me it seems the most parsimonious.
It would necessarily be a never-ending stream of assumptions you are making, even subconscious assumptions that motivate in you actions you're not even aware of. I wouldn't accept the idea here that the experience of a living, thinking being's encounter with the outside all the moments of its life could be so reduced - the experiences are simply too diverse for this to be acceptable without a lot more work done on justifying it.
romansh wrote:Frozen World's argument while not incorrect is absolutely useless, other than making me a tiny bit more cautious about making absolute statements.
In what world is it 'correct'?
Pink logs hop think on.
That statement also is not 'incorrect' - it's just hopelessly unintelligible and has no business being taken seriously in any context.
FW has spent less effort on supporting his position than you. I don't think that's an irrelevant aside.