From: oldernow@dev.null   
      
   On 2024-07-10, D  wrote:   
      
   >> Assuming you meant the symbol 'external' by the symbol   
   >> 'eternal':   
   >   
   > Yes! =) I blame the wife for talking to me when writing. ;)   
      
   How dare you not recognize her angelic intent in helping   
   you transcend external unto eternal! :-)   
      
   > I think an easier theory is that the rock hurts and the   
   > external world exists. ;)   
      
   I think an even easier theory is that all that seems   
   to be is mind only, but some of it considered (again,   
   another mental operation) external, real, etc.   
      
   That seems even more inclusive than your external   
   world theory, because the mind only theory accounts   
   for all phenomena, including mind (sure, that leads to   
   self-referentiality looping).. but the "external world"   
   theory can't seem to explain - i.e. account for - the   
   likes of mind, beings, self, etc.   
      
   > I refer to G.E. Moores "here is a hand" proof. Silly on   
   > the surface, but very profound if you think about it.   
   >   
   > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand   
      
   But that Wikipedia entry doesn't even mention an   
   observer in its summary at the top, which seems a   
   necessary component of "knowing" (is there knowing   
   without a knower?) a hand or two.. and yet trying   
   to find that observer leads to nothing but a set of   
   thoughts/concepts seemingly repeated to itself. In   
   other words, said observer doesn't consist of anything   
   observable/conceivable/nameable.   
      
   If the observer is that flimsy a "reality", what about   
   the solidity of whatever it tells itself it observes?   
      
   And don't forget that words imply an objective/external   
   reality. In fact, the degree of seeming real-ness seems   
   proportional to the frequency and intensity with which   
   the words are repeated.   
      
   Given that, the more we discuss, the more real/external   
   the world will seem *unless/until* a phrase or   
   passage or two/more triggers the all-important   
   word/concept/representation -less "insperience" that flies   
   below the representational plane, so to speak....   
      
   Where is the world in absence of a mind to know it -   
   aka insist it be so and thus?   
      
   >>> 3. Even if they do not believe in the world and facts,   
   >>> they still seem pretty intent on arguing their point with   
   >>> other people, even though there is no point to argue. ;)   
   >>   
   >> Could it be they're fascinated by doing so seeming to   
   >> provoke the kind of post this one is in reply to, and they   
   >> so love typing that of course they're going to create as   
   >> many opportunities to type as they possibly can?   
   >   
   > But that would imply an external world, or if not, the   
   > person would enjoy talking to himself.   
      
   But such "happens" in dreams too. Is a given dream's world   
   external? The self/observer therein surely thinks it is,   
   and yet all of a sudden POOF! both that world and that   
   self are gone upon "awakening".   
      
   Hmmm... how do you know with certainty that's not what's   
   seemingly happening "here" apart from a vinyl record   
   sort of skipping/repeating that this is a special case,   
   and the others are "merely" dreams? Because that sense   
   of "special case" i.e. "this is *REALLY* happening" -   
   is present in dreams as well.   
      
   > If he believes that everything is just himself, that would   
   > be a collapse into solipsism, and ultimate doubt.   
      
   You say that like it's a bad thing ("collapse"), something   
   to be avoided, etc.   
      
   Could a purely conceived being possibly conceive of its   
   purely conceptual underpinnings? And isn't using words by   
   definition and attempt to conceive?   
      
   > Note that with that position, the only thing you could   
   > ever trust is the present moment.  You also could not trust   
   > your identity. However, what you would have to acknowledge,   
   > regardless of illusion, is that for any eventual illusion   
   > to take place, some kind of processing need to take place   
   > in some kind of medium over time. That would imply an   
   > external world.   
      
   It could also imply imagining an external world and   
   blessing that world with non-merely-imagined-hood.   
      
   Isn't taking that world to be external-to/apart-from a   
   modeler the worst possible model for a modeler? Sounds   
   like a guaranteed recipe for alone-liness, and subsequent   
   flavors of anguish rooted in alone-liness.   
      
   And don't individuals mentally perform that "imagine and   
   declare the reality - and details thereof - of that which   
   is imagined" operation incessantly? Perhaps incessantly   
   enough to generate a damned convincing "world" containing   
   that individual?   
      
   --   
   Oh, for the love of signature silliness....   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)