Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> "1Z" wrote:
>>Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>It would be a problem if the actual infinities or infinitesimals were
> thrid person describable *and* playing some role in the process of
> individuating consciousness. In that case comp is false.
>>>About solipsism I am not sure why you introduce the subject. It seems
> to me nobody defend it in the list.
>>Explainning matter as a pattern of experiences , rather than in
>>a "stuffy" way, is methodological solipsism.
> I am doing a detailed look at the relationship between solipsism and
> science. I am writing it up...will post it on the list (if that's
> OK...it's not too big!) when it's Ok to read.. I am surprised at what I
> found. The feedback on solipsism is interesting...
> Russel is right in the sense that 'as-if' instrumentalism seems to
> characterise scientific behaviour...where scientists act 'as-if' the
> external world existed. At the same time, the facts of neuroscience tell
> us that scientific evidence arrives as contents of phenomenal
> consciousness, so science is, in fact, all about correlated appearances...
> and it is an 'as-if' solipsism. That is, science is also acting 'as-if'
> solipsism ( as per "1Z" 'methodological solipsism) defines the route to
> knowledge but is actually in denial of solipsism!
You talk about "as-if" as though it had no empirical support and was a mere
assumption. I see other people. When I sleep and wake up I see the same
Denial of solipism is as well supported empirically as my own historical
which I know of only through memory and some artifacts. I'm afraid you are
into radical skepticism which if applied consistently will leave you with no
knowledge of anything.
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