On Idealism, repeated

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

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#321  Postby Greg the Grouper » Sep 12, 2021 2:53 am

Frozenworld wrote:post

I'm still waiting to hear what 'exist' and 'self' mean in this clusterfuck you call a worldview.
Greg the Grouper
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 47

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

Ads by Google


Re: On Idealism, repeated

#322  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 12, 2021 3:26 am

Frozenworld wrote:
Because you haven't made rational challenges to it.


This entire thread shows that to be either an outright lie, or ridiculous levels of incompetence.


Frozenworld wrote:There is nothing you can say that can lead to the conclusion that external entities are more likely than just figments.


Rather: you are completely unwilling or wholly incapable of engaging with any of the numerous arguments that have been written in this thread - which is why you just keep repeating yourself and dismissing every challenge.

Nothing I can say: then what the fuck are you doing talking to people if you're already so close-minded and certain of yourself?

more likely: please cite the data you used to compile your statistical analysis, and also supply that statistical analysis.

conclusion: to arrive at a conclusion, you need to provide some substantive argumentation, not just an argument from incredulity.

entities: your incompetence is genuinely perplexing - your own argument holds that there are no other entities at all, yet here you are once again fundamentally disabling your own position.

external: your incompetence is genuinely perplexing - your own argument holds that there is no external at all, yet here you are once again fundamentally disabling your own position.


https://www.britannica.com/science/Dunn ... ger-effect

Dunning-Kruger effect, in psychology, a cognitive bias whereby people with limited knowledge or competence in a given intellectual or social domain greatly overestimate their own knowledge or competence in that domain relative to objective criteria or to the performance of their peers or of people in general.


https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ssessments

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.



Frozenworld wrote: It's far from parsimony, and so far your only argument is that it's nonsense which doesn't cut it.


You clearly don't understand 'parsimony'. Parsimony doesn't say that the claim with the fewest parts is right, rather that there should be no more than necessary to explain a phenomenon. Your position explains nothing at all - and in fact, it outright fails in the face of the evidence. You have no answer at all for anything - your position is a faith position, a belief, and one you can't justify using reason or evidence.

And don't lie FW - the entire thread is still here, and everyone can read that you've been presented with a dozen or more challenges to your position, so characterizing all of them as just people saying 'it's nonsense' is bullshit.

The only person here who's refused to engage is you. And you've refused to engage in anything.





Which is hilariously inept.
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: 28764
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#323  Postby Greg the Grouper » Sep 12, 2021 3:34 am

What are you saying, Spearthrower? Clearly, Frozen was able to address the post you wrote in response to a different person entirely.

I'm not gonna lie, if Frozen's next post basically said, "Wow y'all really sat here and watched me masturbate on the internet", I wouldn't even be mad.
Greg the Grouper
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 47

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

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#324  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 12, 2021 3:38 am

FW, you can join the line with all the people enamoured of the fluff they scratched out of their belly buttons. Even if none of the other charges are fair, the one that says you joined this site to engage with people here under entirely false premises is more than amply shown to be validated. When you started this thread, you pretended you were dumbfounded by people who held that the world is a figment of our imaginations, but clearly you already held that position, so not only did your actions indicate that you acknowledge the existence of other people, but you also intended to deceive those people too.

Not a good look, to be clear.
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: 28764
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#325  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 12, 2021 3:42 am

Greg the Grouper wrote:What are you saying, Spearthrower? Clearly, Frozen was able to address the post you wrote in response to a different person entirely.


Indeed, some people think "I typed word" means they've replied, even though they keep ignoring all the points raised by their interlocutor and repeating the same error-laden assertions.

What's most amusing is that FW seems to think that he's the one to arbitrate who has done well or poorly in this thread - probably indicative of the same kind of blind narcissism which induces him to seek out people to tell them he believe in solipsism - whereas in reality, value like this is entirely inter-subjective, and methinks he'd not score so highly on such a scale.
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: 28764
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#326  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 12, 2021 3:46 am

It's extremely easy to manipulate FW into actions.

I can post some words which will cause him to seek to ignore those words, and to repeat prior claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubj ... ifiability

Intersubjective verifiability is the capacity of a concept to be readily and accurately communicated between different individuals ("intersubjectively"), and to be reproduced under varying circumstances for the purposes of verification.


As always, the fact that this figmentary entity keeps spanking the faith statements by reference to real world factors isn't taken as indication of the robustness of the external, but then neither is FW coming up with any explanation - coinciding with his stated position - as to why, if he's the only entity, he keeps proving himself wrong.

How exactly does this external fictitious world keep inducing you to action FW? Only, you failed to address that just as you've failed to address any challenge to your half-baked jizz loaf.
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: 28764
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#327  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 12, 2021 3:48 am

Greg the Grouper wrote:
I'm not gonna lie, if Frozen's next post basically said, "Wow y'all really sat here and watched me masturbate on the internet", I wouldn't even be mad.



As long as he stopped while typing, that'd represent a significant improvement.
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: 28764
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: On Idealism, repeated

#328  Postby Greg the Grouper » Sep 12, 2021 4:06 am

How does one describe the only thing in existence? Do descriptions still exist? Does this singular 'it' possess observable, knowable traits? Is it reasonable to even claim that this 'it' exists if we can't even begin to conceive of what this 'it' is?
Greg the Grouper
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 47

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

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#329  Postby BlackBart » Sep 12, 2021 6:24 am

FW, Why do assume you're going to die in your scenario? You can't be a human, they're merely NPCs in the simulation, so why on Earth do you assume you possess the same frailties?
And why would chemicals like alcohol and LSD have any affect on your consciousness? If they're not real, then how do they affect the only thing that is real? IE You.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12399
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#330  Postby hackenslash » Sep 12, 2021 7:33 am

Spearthrower wrote: methinks he'd not score so highly on a Turing Test.


FIFY
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21813
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#331  Postby BlackBart » Sep 12, 2021 9:00 am

Is arguing with someone that they don't actually exist the most perfect self defeating argument there is?
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12399
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#332  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 12, 2021 11:13 am

Hold on a second... I'll go look for some links written by some other people on the internet who don't exist, and if they declare it so, then that obviously justifies the argument.
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: 28764
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#333  Postby BlackBart » Sep 12, 2021 12:42 pm

You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12399
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#334  Postby Frozenworld » Sep 20, 2021 11:24 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:
Because you haven't made rational challenges to it.


This entire thread shows that to be either an outright lie, or ridiculous levels of incompetence.


Frozenworld wrote:There is nothing you can say that can lead to the conclusion that external entities are more likely than just figments.


Rather: you are completely unwilling or wholly incapable of engaging with any of the numerous arguments that have been written in this thread - which is why you just keep repeating yourself and dismissing every challenge.

Nothing I can say: then what the fuck are you doing talking to people if you're already so close-minded and certain of yourself?

more likely: please cite the data you used to compile your statistical analysis, and also supply that statistical analysis.

conclusion: to arrive at a conclusion, you need to provide some substantive argumentation, not just an argument from incredulity.

entities: your incompetence is genuinely perplexing - your own argument holds that there are no other entities at all, yet here you are once again fundamentally disabling your own position.

external: your incompetence is genuinely perplexing - your own argument holds that there is no external at all, yet here you are once again fundamentally disabling your own position.


https://www.britannica.com/science/Dunn ... ger-effect

Dunning-Kruger effect, in psychology, a cognitive bias whereby people with limited knowledge or competence in a given intellectual or social domain greatly overestimate their own knowledge or competence in that domain relative to objective criteria or to the performance of their peers or of people in general.


https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ssessments

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.



Frozenworld wrote: It's far from parsimony, and so far your only argument is that it's nonsense which doesn't cut it.


You clearly don't understand 'parsimony'. Parsimony doesn't say that the claim with the fewest parts is right, rather that there should be no more than necessary to explain a phenomenon. Your position explains nothing at all - and in fact, it outright fails in the face of the evidence. You have no answer at all for anything - your position is a faith position, a belief, and one you can't justify using reason or evidence.

And don't lie FW - the entire thread is still here, and everyone can read that you've been presented with a dozen or more challenges to your position, so characterizing all of them as just people saying 'it's nonsense' is bullshit.

The only person here who's refused to engage is you. And you've refused to engage in anything.





Which is hilariously inept.


Guess again, solipsism is parsimony:

"Solipsism is a form of logical minimalism. Many people are intuitively unconvinced of the nonexistence of the external world from the basic arguments of solipsism, but a solid proof of its existence is not available at present. The central assertion of solipsism rests on the nonexistence of such a proof, and strong solipsism (as opposed to weak solipsism) asserts that no such proof can be made. In this sense, solipsism is logically related to agnosticism in religion: the distinction between believing you do not know, and believing you could not have known."

Literally any google search will prove solipsism to be the most parsimonious explanation.

And this and the two links you have there already show that to be true:

https://www.quora.com/Did-anybody-have- ... e-thoughts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism#Minimalism

So I'm still waiting on how solipsism is proven false, because you can't prove it false.
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 65

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#335  Postby Greg the Grouper » Sep 21, 2021 12:31 am

So what exactly is a proof, and how does it work fundamentally in the absence of knowledge? What exactly are you looking for?
Greg the Grouper
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 47

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

Ads by Google


Re: On Idealism, repeated

#336  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 21, 2021 6:14 am

Frozenworld wrote:
Guess again, solipsism is parsimony:


More empty assertions devoid of reason?


Frozenworld wrote:"Solipsism is a form of logical minimalism. Many people are intuitively unconvinced of the nonexistence of the external world from the basic arguments of solipsism, but a solid proof of its existence is not available at present. The central assertion of solipsism rests on the nonexistence of such a proof, and strong solipsism (as opposed to weak solipsism) asserts that no such proof can be made. In this sense, solipsism is logically related to agnosticism in religion: the distinction between believing you do not know, and believing you could not have known."



And as usual, even though you fail completely to provide a single instance of argumentation in your own words, and even though you simply copy and paste what some other dude asserts, you aren't capable even of reading that paragraph of words, let alone processing or understanding it.

Meanwhile, Dave down the pub said you were wrong, so it must be true... amirite?

No mention is made in that text of parsimony, no argument in the copied text discusses the argument for parsimony, no argument in the text justifies the contention of parsimony. It's empty of any content supporting your asinine position which you have repeatedly failed to justify at even the most fundamental level.

It's like you think that just putting words means you're right.

This is a forum for reason and skepticism, and you appear to have no ability to engage in such forms of discourse.


Frozenworld wrote:Literally any google search will prove solipsism to be the most parsimonious explanation.


1) Even if it were true, Google searches don't actually decree reality.
2) That's bullshit - as has been seen many times, you don't understand what you're citing, don't have the foggiest notion of the credibility of sources, and you just ignore anything that doesn't conform to your gibberish.


Frozenworld wrote:And this and the two links you have there already show that to be true:


No. No link ever can 'show it to be true' because it's not a real thing - it's an argument, a position, not a fact. Of course, you have no grasp of this at all.


Frozenworld wrote:https://www.quora.com/Did-anybody-have-a-solipsism-obsession-and-recover-I-feel-like-recovery-will-result-in-me-believing-the-thoughts


Quoting what some dude says on quora was bad enough once, but to keep doing it and now to pretend that because some dude on quora said X, that X must be true is outright nonsensical. When you think you're helping your case, you're actually exposing how vacuous you need to be to buy into it.


Frozenworld wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism#Minimalism


That's the link from which you've taken the quote, and as mentioned, it says nothing about parsimony at all. I expect, as with most of the words in this discussion, you don't actually understand what parsimony means.


Frozenworld wrote:So I'm still waiting on how solipsism is proven false, because you can't prove it false.


Your inability to see anything other than the walls of your rectum isn't on anyone else other than you.
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: 28764
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#337  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 21, 2021 6:38 am

Literally any google search will prove solipsism to be the most parsimonious explanation.


So while this is manifestly idiotic, it also turns out to be false at even the most superficial level.

My first result on Google searching for 'solipsism is parsimonious'

http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/27892

This is why Occam's Razor often has a clause specifying that all other theoretical virtues, aside from ontological parsimony, must be equal in order for Y to be more likely than X. By "theoretical virtues" I just mean whatever features theories can have that increase their likelihood of being true, such as explanatory power. If we were to add such a clause to the version of Occam's Razor I formulated above, it should no longer be obvious whether it supports solipsism over realism about the external world. The reason is that if realism explains more of our evidence than solipsism or explains the evidence better, this new principle will say that realism may be more likely to be true despite its positing more kinds of entities.



My second result in Google...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2108438

Certain experiences, which I will call tiger sounds and tiger visual images, exhibit striking correlation. We can explain the existence of this correlation by postulating an entity that is the cause of both. If there were tigers, it would be no surprise that certain sights and certain sounds tend to co-occur. Our rejection of solipsism can thus be justified by appeal to an abductive argument; we advance an inference to the best explanation conforming to the pattern that Rechenbach (1956) called the principle of the common cause.



My third result on Google...

https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic ... &t=1467110

Hi, I’m new here and I just wanted help with this topic.

I’m a big lover of science, in fact I’m hoping to do something with entomology in the future, but I ran into something along the way that sort of hurt me in more ways than one.

Essentially solipsism. The statement that you cannot truly verify your sensory experience and whether or not people in the “outside world” exist and are real. As someone who loved science this was a major blow to me because the very foundation upon which I built my understanding is little more than faith really, not evidence or observation but faith. I know it can’t be proven but I can’t disprove it and that’s what gets me, the frightening thought that it might be true and I’m all alone. That my efforts in the world will mean nothing because it’s not real and there’s no way around it.

I was wondering if people on here encountered it and whether they found a way over it. I understand the irony of asking a forum for help but I don’t know where else to go here.


Pretty sure you're trolling. Have a nice day!


You're pretty religious, am I right? Or are transitioning, or something? Maybe I'm wrong, but 9 outta 10 times these questions pop out of someone who's religious and is either:

Trying to convince some sciency types that nothing is provable, and thus they should be more accepting of religion (i.e. trolling).
Likes science, but someone in their church has told them nothing's provable, and now they're struggling to figure out what's right.


This is your first post. You started a new thread. This isn't even the front page comments section.

My money's on trolling. Have fun, I'm not interested.


OK, I was really thinking you were trolling and reported this thread, but if you're really serious, this is certainly interesting, if not... well, I don't know what age you are, but this is the type of question I and many teenagers with me during secondary education asked. It sounds and feels deep and fundamental to our existence and consciousness, but as you learn more about philosophy, it's just another perspective to consider. Solipsism isn't the logical conclusion to all logically consistent philosophical frameworks, just one of many to choose from depending on how you reason and which axioms you choose.

Just as an aside - the reason people will quickly think you're trolling is because this line of reasoning is a bog-standard entry point for religious apologists and science deniers. It's fairly easy to use the line that 'nothing can truly be verified, therefore the scientific method boils down to little more than faith' to construct a false equivocation with religious faith, and then pascal's wager people into your religious viewpoint. This gets old and annoying VERY quickly.



So you were not just wrong, you were completely wrong.

None of the first set of results on a Google search corroborates or even agrees with your position.

The first one says basically no, that's not parsimonious. The second says that believing that tiger sounds and tiger visuals indicate an actual tiger is more parsimonious than explanations which don't explain that co-occurrence. And the third is an example of a person like you rocking up to a forum and making shit arguments and how people respond to it, i.e. either by considering them a troll or a teenager grasping at the first shiny thing that comes into their view and having no grasp of any wider context at all.

So were you just lying? Did you lie when you said that Google proves you right? Or were you just posturing again because you've got no fucking argument whatsoever?

At what point are you going to realize that you need to actually frame an argument rather than just waving your hands around and pretending you're right?

The irony of the fact that you aren't even aware that Google provides search results tailored to you via algorithm, and that this itself indicates a plurality of subjects engaging with Google's machine learning is no doubt completely lost on you, but not on anyone else here.
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: 28764
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#338  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 21, 2021 6:44 am

Looking through the posts of the guy who wrote that post on arstechnica is suggestive that you and he are, in fact, the same person. Both of you think that quora is a credible source to appeal to, for example.

But then, I guess all solipsists look the same.
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: 28764
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#339  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 21, 2021 6:46 am

Greg the Grouper wrote:So what exactly is a proof, and how does it work fundamentally in the absence of knowledge? What exactly are you looking for?



Proof = a cherrypicked statement said by someone somewhere sometime which confirms my existing belief.
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: 28764
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#340  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 21, 2021 6:48 am

And just in case you weren't aware FrozenWorld - literally every member of this forum is capable of reading and reading comprehension and thus knows you are repeatedly evading addressing the preponderance of substance contained in other peoples' written responses, and they have probably also come to the same conclusion that it's because you just have no real grasp of the subject matter at all. Which is embarrassing really considering the posturing you keep engaging in.
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: 28764
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests

cron