From: x@x.org   
      
   On 7/11/24 13:58, D wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > 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. ;)   
      
   Hmm.   
      
   I remember reading Montesquieu where he wrote that there   
   are 'laws of god, laws of man, and laws of nature'.   
      
   Can you prove that the 'laws of physics' exist?   
      
   If you start generalizing about the movement of physical   
   bodies, is it feasible that you cease to be concrete in   
   your observations?  The second that you try to reduce them   
   to 'laws', they cease to be real because you are no longer   
   actually observing the physical world.   
      
   How may objects that you observe in reality actually follow   
   the paths of nice simple equations?  In reality, if you drop   
   an object, it tends to be irregularly shaped.  That makes impart   
   a more random force when it drops to the ground, making it   
   careen off in less predictable directions.   
      
   What about a bird when it flies in the air?  Is it obeying a   
   nice simple equation?  Or is it moving its wings based upon   
   what it sees or hears and its volition?  If the latter, is   
   it actually not obeying simple 'physical laws'?  Are you   
   rejecting reality by claiming that 'physical laws' exist?   
      
   >   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)