From: oldernow@dev.null   
      
   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   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   > And also let me hasten to add, that entertainment and   
   > passing the time are points.   
      
   There we go!   
      
   > I think you should ditch philosophy and embrace the   
   > heavenly realm of theology instead! ;)   
      
   I prefer creating statements/response wherever I happen   
   to be.   
      
   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.   
      
   The proof is in the disagreement about the same symbols.   
      
   >> "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?   
      
   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.   
      
   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.   
      
   > 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....   
      
   > 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.   
      
   > Actually atoms have been observed.   
   >   
   > https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/05/this-is-the-first-x-ra   
   -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?   
      
   > 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. ;)   
      
   So... you can't imagine a simulation/mind sufficiently   
   conceptually deep/detailed to include nuances like pain and   
   harm - making its container world sufficiently seemingly   
   real, especially to NPC's pre-convinced (i.e. programmed)   
   they're "in" a physical reality?   
      
   > I mean if there is no one but yourself, you can do anything   
   > to anyone, since no innocent bystander is harmed.   
      
   But of *course* consequences are built into a good   
   simulation!   
      
   > Until you wake up. Also note that no ducking and quacking   
   > takes place in the dream, it is electrons moving around   
   > in your brain.   
      
   And you're confident there's no waking up from what seems   
   to be a real physical world? How come some dreams are given   
   "it is electrons moving around in your brain" status,   
   but not one in particular?   
      
   Perhaps in this dream there need be a primary dream in   
   which other dreams can seemingly occur in a way that we   
   call those "dreams", but the primary "physical reality"?   
      
   --   
   Oh, for the love of signature silliness....   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)