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.   
      
   Everyone has different meanings of proof and disproof.   
      
   Does the word 'proof' have meaning?   
      
   In theory, one could quote a bunch of philosophic   
   'proofs' and 'disproofs', but is there really   
   agreement even among philosophers that they are   
   actually valid or invalid?   
      
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)