From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Wed, 10 Jul 2024, oldernow 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! :-)   
      
   Apologies! I thought that's what they were for? ;)   
      
   >> 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 to me to be easier just as it is easier to say that god   
   created everything, instead of using science. It is an easier statement,   
   but proving the statement, explaining how it came into being, how it   
   fits into science, the material world, and how all that is illusion,   
   sounds to me to be vastly more complicated as a theory, than accepting   
   the physical world and our current best scientific explanation.   
      
   After all, what's the point of discussion, if there is no one to discuss   
   with?   
      
   And ethics falls, and meaning too. But, a solipsist position is   
   impossible to disprove, even though I argue, that the burden of proof   
   lies on the solipsist to disprove the world, rather than for the world   
   to disprove the solipsist.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   But it does. We know perfectly well where we come from, how parts of   
   minds works, etc. But here's the beauty, we definitely do _not_   
   understand everything. But as far as I can tell, the physical world is   
   pretty well proven, especially on pragmatic grounds.   
      
   If you act, as if the world exist, and if the world acts as if it did   
   have external existence, there's really no point in adding the "mind"   
   aspect to it at all, that explains nothing, and adds nothing to the theory.   
      
   >> 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   
      
   Oh, it is taking from a lecture and a paper. The observer is everyone in   
   the room, including the philosopher himself.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I disgaree. I just performed the experiment with my wife and everyone   
   passed with flying colors! =) She was extremely convinced about the   
   external world.   
      
   > If the observer is that flimsy a "reality", what about   
   > the solidity of whatever it tells itself it observes?   
      
   You lost me there.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Haha... perhaps. To me the intensity of seeming real-ness increases the   
   more I try to break the laws of physics. It tends to hurt! No words   
   necessary. ;)   
      
   > 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?   
      
   Just where it is. If we're talking about your absent mind (be that   
   heaven, death or transcendence) the world is not from your point of   
   view, which does no longer exist. But from the point of views of other   
   people, the world still exists. And should no one exist, the world still   
   exist as a bunch of atoms.   
      
   >>>> 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".   
      
   Yes, and I think the key here is that you wake up. We also know   
   perfectly well what dreams are, what they look like when we observe the   
   brain and so on, so nothing mystical going on there. Based on that,   
   dreams are also a physical phenomenon, ultimately grounded in... the   
   external world. ;)   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Oh that's easy. The external world is my default case, and based on   
   everything I have seen, read and done, the evidence seems to be   
   overwhelmingly in favour of the external world.   
      
   So anyone disagreeing with me, has the burden of proof. And likewise, no   
   one has ever managed to prove to me anything else besides the real   
   world, or falsified the real world for me.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   Yes... it is not a very productive framework if you take it seriously,   
   because all ethics, motivation and will disappear if you take it   
   seriously.   
      
   If you act, to all purposes as if an external world existed, and if that   
   world acts on you as if it existed, but you still say you are a   
   solipsist, I do not think your behaviour is aligned with your belief,   
   and that deep down, you are a believer in the world until your acts   
   start to align more with your mind being the only thing that does exist.   
      
   > Could a purely conceived being possibly conceive of its   
   > purely conceptual underpinnings? And isn't using words by   
   > definition and attempt to conceive?   
      
   Could you rephrase that?   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)