From: nospam@example.net   
      
   Apologies for the delay! My mail/news client separate new posts from   
   unseen posts, and since this was filed as unseen and not new I missed   
   it. =( But now I know!   
      
   On Mon, 15 Jul 2024, oldernow wrote:   
      
   > On 2024-07-11, D  wrote:   
   >   
   >> After all, what's the point of discussion, if there is no   
   >> one to discuss with?   
   >   
   > Why does there need to be a point to discussion?   
      
   Well, let me rephrase, why does there need to be a point to discussing   
   with someone else?   
      
   And also let me hasten to add, that entertainment and passing the time   
   are points.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > To me it looks like the burden lies with those who feel   
   > the burden of there needing to be a burden: the rest of   
   > us are fat, dumb, and illusory. ;-)   
      
   )   
      
   I think you should ditch philosophy and embrace the heavenly realm of   
   theology instead! ;)   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > "is pretty well proven" -> "is believed in, and therein   
   > declared by some believers thereof to be 'proven'"   
      
   Well, I provided you with proof in the form of G.E. Moore. I think we   
   are talking in circles, so I'll let the proof stand, with the added   
   point (which I think I mentioned previously as well) that there is no   
   escape from a solipsist and infinitely skeptical point of view, but that   
   point of view hsa yielded far less than science and materialism. But if   
   you doubt all, there is nothing anyone can say to convince you of   
   anything. =)   
      
   >> If you act, as if the world exist, and if the world acts as   
   >> if it did have external existence,   
   >   
   > Then... it's a... a... dream? Because that scenario is   
   > seemingly present in dreams.   
   >   
   >> there's really no point in adding the "mind" aspect to   
   >> it at all, that explains nothing, and adds nothing to   
   >> the theory.   
   >   
   > "Mind only" covers the whole shebang, including itself.   
      
   What does that mean? The way I see it, mind is created on top of a world   
   and material substratum. First world, then mind.   
      
   >>> If the observer is that flimsy a "reality", what about   
   >>> the solidity of whatever it tells itself it observes?   
   >>   
   >> You lost me there.   
   >   
   > How could an observer whose essence can't be found in   
   > space/time have an authoritative view on space/time   
   > phenomena?   
      
   Well, I believe the essence of the observer can be found in space/time,   
   and that we have science, books, experiments, which enable us to talk   
   very authoritatively about space/time.   
      
   > Observer/observation/observed: a representational dream   
   > defined along word boundaries.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > But I thought modern physics hasn't believed in the   
   > *existence* of atoms for quite some time, so what kind of   
   > existence does this "world" you speak of have if it depends   
   > on non-existent particle clusterings called "atoms"?   
      
   Ahh... but the fact that we do not yet know the ultimate subtratum and   
   the ultimate theory, does not invalidate the fact that we do know that   
   there is a table in front of us, and that gravity can kill.   
      
   The fact that we do not know everything, and that we are somtimes   
   honestly required to say that we don't know (yet) does not imply that we   
   should throw science out the window. If that were the case we would   
   still run around on the savannah.   
      
   >> 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. ;)   
   >   
   > And the external world is grounded in "atoms" that have   
   > never been observed, and are quite possibly/probably   
   > no longer considered the rest modeling (i.e. no longer   
   > believed in)....   
      
   Actually atoms have been observed.   
      
   https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/05/this-is-the-first-x-ray-   
   aken-of-a-single-atom/   
      
   > Flimsy patterns of words chasing flimsy patterns of words'   
   > tails!   
      
   You theologist!! ;)   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > The "evidence" is your own faith in it being thus. But   
   > your own faith proves nothing to anyone else, regardless   
   > the amounts/arrangements of words used to pretend there's   
   > something more to it than faith.   
      
   No, my evidence is based on what I see, repeatable experience and   
   experiment. If gravity is just faith, I'd expect the person to jump out   
   the window without harm. But somehow that never seems to happen. ;)   
      
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   > And you know this from...? From having taken it   
   > seriously? Or are you positing outcomes on taking it   
   > seriously?   
      
   I mean if there is no one but yourself, you can do anything to anyone,   
   since no innocent bystander is harmed.   
      
   > The "ethics" part is extra hilarious. It seems most people   
   > believe the external world model you do, and ethics is all   
   > but utterly absent in the midst of that mass hallucination.   
      
   Not at all. There are plenty of ethical theories within a materialistic   
   view of reality. Let me propose contratarianism to give you just one   
   example.   
      
   > How many prisons/laws/police/courts/armies/wars does it   
   > take to see that?   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Not even the "you" to have a "mind"! The 'you' and 'mind'   
   > are representations as well.   
      
   Now we are moving into the philosophy of identity.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)