From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   D  writes:   
      
   > Solipsism, the position of doubting everything, including ones self,   
   > becomes meaningless, because there is no truth, so there is no ground   
   > for any discussion.   
      
   That isn't the definition of solipsism.   
      
   2.  PHILOSOPHY the view or theory that the self is all that can be known   
   to exist.  "solipsism is an idealist thesis because ‘Only my mind   
   exists’ entails ‘Only minds exist’"   
      
   >>> Until the falsification is made, the world does in fact exist, and   
   >>> the proof is the senses.   
   >>>   
   >> No. The truth is the truth regardless of whether anyone proves it or   
   >> disproves it. (Otherwise truth becomes subjective, or consensus   
   >> truth).   
   >   
   > And why are you against the consensus theory of truth? Are you a   
   > scientific realist or anti-realist? If there is no consciousness in   
   > the universe, do you still believe in the concept of truth? And if so,   
   > exactly _where_ in the world does truth then exist?   
      
   If there is a material world independent of the observer, then it has to   
   be there whether it has been proved or not. To argue that it exists   
   until someone falsifies it is a self-defeating argument. It is not   
   dependent on any person. Persons do not cause the material world. Or if   
   they do, then the world is sung into existence.   
      
   >   
   >>> So if you can show me that, as per my earlier message, we live in a   
   >>> simulation, that there in fact is an evil demon tricking us   
   >>> etc. I'll happily agree! But no one has done it, so what we see,   
   >>> lacking proof or falsification, is the truth.   
   >>   
   >> This is very odd. I can't prove it is a simulation, but you can't   
   >> prove it isn't. So we don't really know. But we assume it isn't,   
   >> because that is simpler.   
   >   
   > So do you then assume gravity works, or do you know gravity works? I   
   > know, due to the evidence of my senses that the external world exists,   
   > and that gravity works. I don't need to assume that.   
      
   I think this must be a misuse of the word 'know', as you acknowledge   
   above that you could be proved wrong. Although you have set quite   
   specific criteria for that.   
      
   >> I don't think that is the definition of solipsism. Solipsism is   
   >> doubting everything except your mind. And anyway, how could you hold   
   >> a   
   >   
   > If you doubt everything, you also have to doubt your mind or else you   
   > are being inconsistent.   
      
   The definition is not everything, it is everything except the mind. And   
   it isn't inconsistent anyway.   
      
   > Because your mind and the ideas you have might just be an illusion,   
   > you might think you are a rational solipsist, but in reality, you   
   > don't even exist, you are a simulation in an AI, or you are in fact   
   > just thinking gibberish, while you think the gibberish means you are a   
   > rational solipsist. Descartes missed that step.   
      
   A simulated mind is still a mind, and simulated logic is still logic.   
      
   If your mind is malfunctioning and you don't know about it however, then   
   you are in a lot of trouble. But that is not the solipsist position.   
      
   >   
   >> at his position through logic and reason, so he is assuming his mind   
   >> is functioning.   
   >   
   > That is inconsistent, because the logic and reasoning might be   
   > perverted by an evil demon.   
      
   Inconsistent with what? It's consistent with the proper definition of   
   solipsism.   
      
   >   
   >> One could in principle doubt ones own mind regardless of whether it   
   >> is a simulation in an AI. Besides which, simulated mind is the same   
   >> as mind, in the same way that simulated logic is the same as logic.   
   >   
   > Yes, but you have to doubt your symbols and your thinking. You might   
   > only think it makes sense, but in reality it doesn't.   
      
   You don't have to doubt your symbols and your thinking. Why do you think   
   that?   
      
   >> Well it hasn't, quite the opposite. Quantum mechanics shows that   
   >> properties of objects are relative to other objects.   
   >   
   > I don't see the connection with song lines here. Could you please   
   > elaborate a bit about the similarity between aborigines and QM?   
   >   
      
   Properties of objects are not in the objects themselves, but in their   
   relation to other objects. As we can regard the observer as an object   
   too, this means that the properties of an object which one observer sees   
   might not be the same as the properties another sees. This is much like   
   relativity. So in the case of the songlines, they sing into existence   
   their version of the world. There may be other versions, but theirs only   
   comes into existence when they observe it.   
      
   This also resolves the problems with quantum entanglement which appeared   
   to allow information to travel instantaneously, which is forbidden by   
   relativity.   
      
   > No, I'm talking about the external world. I have written about above   
   > how you can show positive proof that falsifies the external world as   
   > we see it.   
      
   I don't accept that it is my burden to do that. Besides which, proving   
   it is a matrix gains nothing at all, because we are left with the   
   question of where the matrix is. Is it on a computer? Where is that?   
   >>   
   >> I don't understand this at all. What you would be assuming is that   
   >> the origin of your impressions to the senses is a material world. You   
   >> are not assuming that anything you care to imagine is is also there   
   >> in the material world. You know the difference between what you see,   
   >> and what you imagine seeing. You just don't know what the cause of   
   >> what you see is.   
   >   
   > No, but you assume the ontological burden of the possibility. Since   
   > you _assume_, you do admit the possibility of you being wrong, that   
   > is, there is a hidden assumption of a small possibility of there   
   > actually being a god, a dragon, a simulation etc. After all, you   
   > cannot rule them out. But if you instead adopt a definition of truth   
   > based on your senses and that they give you the evidence of an   
   > external world, you are free of those ontological burdens, unless   
   > someone falsifies the world, by showing you that it was, in fact, just   
   > an illusion, or a simulation, or what ever other possibility someone   
   > might find evidence for.   
      
   I can't see much between these two positions. But if I say I assume   
   something, that means I don't know for sure. And if I say I don't know,   
   then I can't be wrong if it turns out differently.   
   >>   
   >> How could that ever happen when you are 100% certain? If it happened   
   >> you would have to say "I was wrong, even though I was 100% certain I   
   >> was right". So your certainty isn't certainty. You entertain doubt.   
   >   
   > It was. We have said with 100% certainty, that ether exists, and we   
   > were wrong, and updated our truth when evidence was presented. This   
   > happens all the time.   
   >   
   > This is a weakness of scientific realism (science describes the true   
   > nature of the world) and is why I recommend scientific anti-realism,   
   > where science aims to produce models that enable us to make successful   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)