Wasn't Liebnitz a genius with his monads? That's not far off what we're saying here.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Fritz Griffith [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2000 10:19 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Everything is Just a Memory > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: Everything is Just a Memory > >Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 11:58:56 -0800 > > > >Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > There is a widespread confusion between two kind of idealism. > > > > > > 1) There is solipsism, sometimes called "subjective idealism". It is > > > (as James Higgo said) the doctrine that I am dreaming, that I am the > >only > > > builder of reality, and all other people are just zombie. > > > This is a ridiculous doctrine, although it can be used to illustrate > > > some philophical point, like the concept of zombie. > > > It is a ridiculous doctrine, because a doctrine is something you > > > communicate, and why should someone try to communicate things to > > > zombie. So solipsisme (like some strong form of positivism) is > > > self-defeating. > > > >I don't agree that this is a ridiculous doctrine, or that a believer in > >solipsism should not communicate. > > > >A solipsist may communicate with others, even if he believes they are > >not conscious, in order to get information and ideas. In his model of > >the world, certain information comes to him only through interaction > >with the outside. If he is to work out his ideas in fullness, he can > >best do so by interacting with the outside world. This may involve > >bouncing ideas off of other people, and even trying to persuade them, > >in order to test the quality of his ideas. > > > >It is like a believer in more conventional philosophies who finds it > >useful to write his ideas down on paper (or on a computer), in order to > >clarify them and look for problems and new approaches. He doesn't think > >the paper or computer is conscious, but this method of interacting with > >the outside world can still be productive. > > > > I totally agree with Hal here. I don't believe it's a ridiculous doctrine > > either, for exactly the reasons pointed out above. > > >The real problem with solipsism, IMO, is that it fails to predict or > >explain why the world is the way it is. Fine, I'm dreaming. Why? > >Why am I dreaming that I live in a lawful universe? And why do I have > >dreams within the dream, and those dreams are not of a lawful universe? > >None of this is explained. > > > >Contrast this with other approaches to philosophy, such as the all- > >universes models we have been discussing. These approaches have the > >potential to truly explain why the universe is lawful, and why we see > >things in roughly the way they are. It might even turn out that our > >very universe is, by some measures, the most probable one to exist. > > > >We don't know for sure that things will work out this way, but at > >least the potential is there. This makes it a very productive avenue > >to explore. It is hard to see how solipsism could begin to provide this > >kind of explanation. > > > >Hal > > > > My answer to you is that it is simpler for the laws of physics to directly > > control what you "dream" about than for the laws of physics to control a > universe, which feeds you inputs, which forms what you dream about. > Things > are always simpler without a 3rd party intermediary. So, conventional > science is definitely a productive anvenue to explore, because it explains > > the laws of our "dream". As for MWI, I am not a true solipsist because I > believe that all possible dreams exist in the plentitude. For this > reason, > everyone I know is a zombie in my dream, but in all of reality, they are > not, because the dream that would correspond to their reality does exist, > even though it does not interact with mine. > > Fritz > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
