From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Tue, 9 Jul 2024, oldernow wrote:   
      
   > On 2024-07-08, D  wrote:   
   >   
   >> I am fascinated by people who argue there are no facts   
   >> and no eternal world for two reasons.   
   >   
   > Assuming you meant the symbol 'external' by the symbol   
   > 'eternal':   
      
   Yes! =) I blame the wife for talking to me when writing. ;)   
      
   >> 1. They tend to hurt when they hit a rock.   
   >   
   > Does not the symbol 'psychosomatic' suggest the possibility   
   > of hurt sans an external world to cause it?   
      
   I think not. I think an easier theory is that the rock hurts and the   
   external world exists. ;) I've experienced psycho-somateic "death" in   
   others, and for being psycho-somatic it sure seemed real to me, and the   
   dead never came back.   
      
   >> 2. They have never managed to disprove the world.   
   >   
   > With what? Words? If so, why would you accept cousins to   
   > the "stuff" dreams are made of as capable of providing   
   > proof/disproof of stuff alleged to not be the "stuff"   
   > dreams are made of?   
      
   The way of proof is entirely up to the people who would like to prove that   
   the world does not exist, and instead of it, something else does. To my   
   knowledge, this has never been done.   
      
   I think it is reasonable to assume the default state of an external world,   
   and have people who disagree with this, provide disproving the world, and   
   showing that something else exists.   
      
   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   
      
   >> 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. If he believes that everything is just himself, that   
   would be a collapse into solipsism, and ultimate doubt. 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.   
      
   But I think, at the end of the day, the best proof I can offer you of an   
   external world is G.E. Moores, as well as the fact that you do seem to   
   enjoy interacting with others, and that to me, the fact that they exist   
   seems to be a better explanation, instead of denying everything except   
   consciousness.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)