From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Fri, 19 Jul 2024, oldernow wrote:   
      
   > On 2024-07-18, D  wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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!   
   >   
   > A likely excuse! :P   
      
   Well, one does ones best! ;)   
      
      
   >>> 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?   
   >   
   > I find it much more pleasant without there being a point   
   > to it.   
      
   Aha! So the pleasure of there not being a point is the point then! ;)   
      
   >> And also let me hasten to add, that entertainment and   
   >> passing the time are points.   
   >   
   > There we go!   
      
   Amen!   
      
   >> I think you should ditch philosophy and embrace the   
   >> heavenly realm of theology instead! ;)   
   >   
   > I prefer creating statements/response wherever I happen   
   > to be.   
      
   Well, I think that is much more inclusive of you.   
      
   > I mean, I might think differently if everyone had the   
   > same view of what 'philosophy' "is", or 'theology'   
   > "is". Instead, it's quite easy to imagine finding a   
   > "theology" space, and being told I should ditch it to   
   > embrace some "philosophy" realm.... ;-)   
      
   )   
      
   >> 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. =)   
   >   
   > That's almost always the case with all individuals, hence   
   > my stance we're all in our own purely conceptual worlds   
   > with private meanings/significances/contexts/etc. assigned   
   > to common symbols, which is necessarily a recipe for not   
   > being able to agree, not being able to get along, etc.   
      
   Well, I don't think it is binary. But yes, certain things are   
   susceptible to what you say. One of my favourite topics on that note is   
   gender! I say... show me your chromosomes and I'll show you your gender,   
   and boy have I gotten venomous looks based on that statement. ;)   
      
   > The proof is in the disagreement about the same symbols.   
      
   Well, it can't be that bad, can it? I mean there must be some symbol we   
   could agree on perhaps? And if so, would it disprove your current world   
   view?   
      
   >>> "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.   
   >   
   > And what of the Really Super Convincing When You're In Them   
   > worlds we refer to as "dreams"? What of the seemingly very   
   > real "material" in those worlds?   
      
   This is a very interesting question. I don't know how it is for   
   everyone else, but for me, dreams are never that convincing. To me there   
   is a distinct and crystal clear difference between dream and waking   
   life, and to my knowledge and memory I have never been confused as to   
   which is which, regardless of what Chuang Tzu might say or think in his   
   classic butterfly dream.   
      
   And when it comes to how convincing it is, or is not, it all gets clear   
   when you wake up, alternatively when the brain activity and bodily   
   parameters are measured in the two different states.   
      
   > See also: Mind Only   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > And your belief makes that seem real(ity) to you.   
      
   It is not belief, since it is based on proof. I do know and accept that   
   you do not accept my proof, but at the same time, that makes you very   
   unique, since the majority of the people I try my proof on do seem to   
   agree with me.   
      
   Another distinction is that I also revise my mental knowledge, based on   
   new facts, which distinguish it from pure belief as well.   
      
   > But no actual physical reality is necessary for that   
   > experience. I've night-and-day-dreamed such many times,   
   > and upon seemingly awakening discover all that seeming   
   > "stuff" has been nothing but Mind Only.   
      
   But you can hook yourself up to any nr of EEG machines and measuring   
   equipment and easily prove to yourself that it was a dream, no matter   
   what your subjective view at that very instance was.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Once upon a time I lived with a landlady who would   
   > sometimes cry and scream that the CIA was screaming   
   > offensive and frightening things her direction.   
   >   
   > But I couldn't hear a thing.   
   >   
   > So much for an appearance - of a table, say -  necessarily   
   > implying an underlying physical reality....   
      
   Well, easy to prove or disprove. Sound is vibration, and can be   
   measured.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Nobody's saying you have to throw anything out a   
   > window. I've simply a different view on how this   
   > seems to be happening.   
      
   Well, this view also means the results should be different? Because if   
   there is not difference between your view and reality, then why insist   
   on the view when proof is easily available?   
      
   And if reality and other people do not exist, why should you be sad when   
   your hurt someone?   
      
   Or what about suicide? No one is killed, and in fact, if mind is all   
   there is, the suicide is an illusion right?   
      
   I'm just saying that everyone I met who was a solipsist seemed very   
   uninterested in trying his thesis by killing himself or someone else,   
   and acted as if, 100%, an external world existed, and if that is how the   
   person acts, while claiming to have a different world view, then I   
   cannot quite take that person seriously.   
      
   I prefer when people act in accordance with their beliefs, or else I   
   quickly suspect them of mental and/or verbal theater. That can of course   
   be entertaining but it certainly is not a good foundation for an   
   enlightening discussion, but does run the risk of being a waste of time.   
   =(   
      
   >> Actually atoms have been observed.   
   >>   
   >> https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/05/this-is-the-first-x-r   
   y-taken-of-a-single-atom/   
   >   
   > Are you sure they weren't merely "observed" in ultimately   
   > the same way my old landlady "heard" the CIA shouting   
   > obscenities at her?   
      
   Yes.   
      
   >> No, my evidence is based on what I see, repeatable   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)