Colin Hales wrote:
> I'm overrun with stuff at uni, but I have this one issue - solipsism- which
> is hot and we seem to be touching on, so I thought you may help me collect
> my thoughts before I run off. gotta leave all those threads hanging
> there.and I left them in an awfully under engineered state.sorry!
> SIDE ISSUE (infinity and the UDA)
> From the UDA you can show that to make comp false you need to introduce
> actual infinities in the subject.
This isn't the only way COMP couldbe false. For instance, if
matter exists, consciousness could be dependent on it. Thus,
while the existence of matter might disprove the Bruno version of comp,
it doesn't prove the existence of actual infintities.
> The infinitely small and infinitely large are two sides of the same thing.
> One can construct an infinitesimal as an identity = the difference between
> two very nearly cancelling infinities (type A and type B) or from a single
> infinity consisting of an infinite number of random simple transitory events
> (changes from state A to B and back) that acts as an effective average
You can construct infinitessimals in a purely mathematical way.
> Q1. As a solipsist, if you say 'belief in self as the only reality' does
> this entail the disbelief in anything else other than 'self' (=experiential
> reality of the observer)? .i.e. ...the active denial of any reality other
> than your experience?
yes. Not that I am a solipsist.
> This denial seems a tad optional from the definitions. That denial would
> necessitate magical intervention in the provision of phenomenal
> consciousness (Berkeley-esque beliefs) that constitute a mass-delusion of
> relentless detail.. a belief which is also bereft of empirical parsimony..
Not a mass delusion, a personal one.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at