From: oldernow@dev.null
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?
> 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. ;-)
> 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'"
> 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.
>> 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?
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"?
> 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)....
Flimsy patterns of words chasing flimsy patterns of words'
tails!
> 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.
>>> 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?
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.
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.
>> 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?
I could!
>> It could also imply imagining an external world and
>> blessing that world with non-merely-imagined-hood.
>
> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Ducks walking and quacking like ducks seemingly happens
in body-said-to-be-asleep dreams, including this one some
believe/say/declare isn't "merely" a dream.
> So in my opinion, even _if_ the external world is, there
> are plenty of proof that we are not alone, we are on the
> contrary, swimming in relationships and kinships!
What you're calling "proof", I'm calling "representational
belief/faith", is all....
> P.S. It is now 30 degrees at night, so any errors or
> confusion is blamed on Joe Biden! ;)
>
> P.P.S. I don't think you will bite. ;)
>
> P.P.P.S. But maybe someone else will?
Biden has seemed an unethical (despite no doubt believing
in an "external world"...) peace of shit ever since I
can remember being aware of him as a politician. But, you
know: "seemed", which implies a belief stack/context, and
clearly others seemed to operate in completely different
stacks/contexts.
Does that count as a "bite"?
--
Oh, for the love of signature silliness....
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
