From: oldernow@dev.null
On 2025-03-11, D wrote:
>>> Incorrect.
>>
>> You forgot the rest of the sentence, which is: "in the
>> context of my faith".
> Maybe we should backup and start again?
Start our two movies (i.e. faith-based representational
contexts *about* an alleged reality) again, insist our
movies are the "real" movies, and then wondering why each
other doesn't get/grasp what the other is talking about?
In accord with however that semi-famous phrase goes about
expecting different results from the same approach, I'm
confident it'll go precisely the same.
> Also, what does the context of your faith mean?
Your reasoning occurs relative to what you believe,
i.e. occurs in a context whose fundamentals are mostly
silently driving conclusion possibilities.
The first step out of that is seeing/acknowledging that's
how our thought processes transpire.
>> Positing an external world and its laws, and then
>> being surprised that it works in accord with one's
>> faith regardless how deeply one looks is merely an
>> investigation into the power of faith.
>
> There is no positing. It is just action. If faith
> is so powerful, no one should be afraid. This is a
> self-contradiction.
The positing is in the "silent" backdrop of your beliefs
and we're as unaware of as we are of our own odor(s).
> By doubting that, your position collapses into solipsism.
Interpretation: not agreeing with me means you believe
in silliness. Thank any/all deities I'm not silly enoug
to believe in that I could point that out to the rest of
the world before they too have to endure your silliness!
>> Of all the people I have met who do not believe in an external world, no
>> one has ever taken the challenge, thereby proving that they do in fact,
>> for all intents and purposes, act as if there is an external reality.
>
> Not jumping ("act") doesn't prove there's an external
> world: it proves one *believes* ("as if") there's an
> external world,
> That explains nothing and just adds another complication,
> it is therefore redundant.
Ditto.
> It opens oneup to beliving the belief in the world and
> belief in belief in belief in the world.
Reminds me of how words are defined in terms of each other,
but pointing it out opens one up to those who *believe*
words contain meaning explaining to you how you've opened
yourself up to something!
>> What is often called "reality" is indistinguishable from
>> "dreaming plus the belief one isn't merely dreaming".
>
> Let's reframe it. Can you falsify the world? Can you shove
> me one single proof that it does not exist or that the
> world is mind?
You're asking me to prove something about a territory
using maps!
> The fact that you are arguing also proves that at a deep
> level you do acknowledge the external world, so it is yet
> another way in which you refute your own position.
And, assuming that's true for argument's sake, your
adopting argument consisting of "I win because I declare
that you've refuted yourself! Nanny nanny boo boo!" is
somehow better?
>> Because "knowing" is faith plus the belief that what is
>> known is not "merely" one's faith.
>
> This is the theory of truth, this is another question.
> Truth does not exist outside the human mind.
Then why is the existence of an external world - and that
others acknowledge it - so important to you?
> It is a process that happens when the mind experiences
> the external world.
If "Truth does not exist outside the human mind", than how
could there be any value to mind experiencing a truthless
external world?
> Nope. It is a fact.
In your mind only, because you just told me there's
no truth - which I imagine facts to be a subset of or
synonymous with - in the alleged external world.
> Planet earth is.
And how about the world you dreamed of being in last time
you dreamed?
> If you cannot falsify that statement, it is the truth. If
> you falsify it, by all means, I'll change my mind. ;)
As I've already explained, a faith context is impervious
to others' verbiage unless explicitly allowed. You've made
it clear you believe in an external world, but instead
of giving others' thoughts on the matter a thorough go,
you pre-judge such incoming thoughts to be just so much
silliness, e.g. solipsism.
But that doesn't mean that practicing typing is any
less fun!
The overall situation seems rather hilarious: you're
asking someone whom you consider to be wrong to magically
have the wherewithal to prove you're wrong, when per your
own assessment of them they're too dumb to get their own
theories correct.
Is there a name for that? I propose: "Asking Others To
Do What You Know In Advance They Couldn't Possibly Do In
Order to Win".
> This makes no sense to me. I'm talking about the external
> world, and I still see no way you have falsified the
> existence of material reality, therefore I can only
> conclude you are talking nonsense. ;)
We're are all incessantly talking/writing nonsense to each
other. That's what happens when pretending symbols contain
meaning, when in fact the symbol processing systems (minds)
are so independent that they inform the symbols in real
time while pretending something more globally objective is
taking place across/between those systems in order to avoid
offing themselves over the ridiculousness of the situation.
--
NPC's dutifully ignored.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
