From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Thu, 10 Apr 2025, oldernow wrote:   
      
   > On 2025-04-09, D  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Ask him if he believes: "Every rule has an exception."   
   >>   
   >> If he says no, then there are rules thay have no   
   >> exceptions. I.e. there exist inviolable laws. So in   
   >> addition to the existence of his mind there are also laws.   
   >>   
   >> If he says yes, then the rule "Every rule has an exception"   
   >> would itself also have an exception, which again implies   
   >> there are some rules without exceptions.  Which are   
   >> inviolable laws. Therefore laws exist.   
   >>   
   >> This might seem like a parlor trick, but it is just   
   >> showing how the logical inconsistency of the statement   
   >> "Every rule has an exception." Forces us to to see that   
   >> it is false, and therefore the converse of that statement   
   >> is necessarily true.   
   >>   
   >> The necessary truth of the converse "not every rule   
   >> has an exception" implies there are rules that have no   
   >> exceptions, so there are laws, there is order, and reality   
   >> is law-governed.   
   >>   
   >> Now, if only we can work out what those laws are.. And   
   >> that is what science is about: figuring out the laws that   
   >> explain the kinds of experiences we have.   
   >>   
   >> OR   
   >>   
   >> Even if this conscious state is an illusion, there still   
   >> must be something responsible for that illusory conscious   
   >> state.   
   >>   
   >> OR   
   >>   
   >> Functionalism might be another path. If the solipsist   
   >> accepts functionalism, then even if the other people   
   >> they see are only figments of their imagination, then   
   >> their imagination must be performing a process at least   
   >> as complex as is necessary to generate the appearance of   
   >> intelligent conscious behavior, and such processing would   
   >> necessarily invoke the consciousness associated with such   
   >> a complex process.   
   >>   
   >> Fun thoughts to play around with. =)   
   >   
   > Yes. Thought. Which isn't an external, physical   
   > reality. Save to one who believes it is. But one might   
   > say their own joke is on them.   
   >   
   > The more words/symbols you use, the more you demonstrate   
   > being involved-in/engaged-with a symbol-mediated/defined   
   > "reality", and not some external "real reality".   
      
   My contact was a bit disappointed that you did not engage with any of the   
   points. =( He thought that this was perhaps indicative of the success of   
   his arguments. =)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)