Colin G. Hales:
so we are all liars.
As a matter of fact I never agreed to be a 'scientist' (and listmembers may
approve that), and I try to do science (my term) on science (their term). I
am still struggling with the identification of my term. "Their" term is: a
wrong model view.
But we all pretend to be smart liars.
Your last paragraph paved my way to the nuthouse.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Colin Geoffrey Hales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test
Yay!.... someone 'got' my little dialogue!
The point is that scientists are actually ALL tacit solipsists. The only
way a solipsist can exist is to outwardly agree with the massive
confabulation they appear to inhabit whilst inwardly maintaining the only
'real truth'. There's no external reality...It's not real!...so being
duplicitous is OK.
But to go on being a tacit solipsist affirmed by inaction: not admitting
consciouness itself of actually caused by something...is equivalent to an
inward belief of Bishop Berkeley-esque magical intervention on a massive
scale without actually realising it. The whole delusion is maintained by a
belief in an 'objective-view' that makes it seem like we're directly
accessing an external world when we are not - it's all mediated by MIND,
which we deny by not admitting it to be evidence of anything.... and
around we go.... the whole picture is self consistent and inherently
deluded and ultimately not honest. This is the state of science.... the
last 2 paragraphs of the latest version of my little monologue are as
CASE (a) world: Virtual solipsist world. In this world I accept my mind as
conclusive proof supporting continued fervent adherence to the belief in a
CASE (b) world: In this world I let a real external world be responsible
for all phenomenal mirrors. Concsiousness is held as proof of a separately
described underlying natural world, totally compatible with normally
traditional empirical science of appearances _within_ consciousness.
"If I am right to be a solipsist scientist I live in the universe of the
magical fabricator, forced to play a pretend life ‘as-if’ there is a real
external world with fictitious scientific colleagues, all doing the same
thing. What is the reality of my life as a scientist telling me? I look
around myself and what do I see universal evidence of? The world I
actually live in is world (a). This evidence acts in support of my
solipsism. No scientist anywhere has, for any reason other than
accidentally, ever looked at systems producing worlds with scientists in
them complete with minds inside it, built of it. The world I actually live
in is the world of the 'as-if' ficticious objective view where scientist
believe without justification that they are literally describing the
natural world, and not how it appears to them. Indeed when someone tries
to describe an underlying world they the scientific world snaps back,
declares the attempt irrelevant, empirically unsupportable and therefore
unscientific metaphysics....consistent with an implicit outward
methodological denial of mind.
But if I am wrong to be a solipsist, then the evidence paints a very odd
picture of science. In this bizarre world, ‘objective’ scientists
outwardly all act ‘as-if’ an external world exists yet scientists are
actually virtual solipsists outwardly acting ‘as-if’ there is no such
thing as mind whilst being totally reliant on their mind to do science and
also unaware that is the case. And, like me, being in methodological
denial of their own mind, are tacitly affirming belief in a magical
fabricator through a cultural omission of paying due attention to
reviewing their own scientific evidence system. Scientists in this world
will go on forever correlating appearances within their denied phenomenal
mirrors and never get to do science on phenomenal mirrors. Which one to
choose? Perhaps I’ll stay where the fictitious money is… in the land of
the virtual magical fabricator…and keep quiet."
I'm done with yet another paper.
This ..place... I have reached in depicting science I have reached from so
many different perspectives now it's almost mundane
... So many I don't know where to submit them any more!...
.....each different approach results in the same basic conclusion....
science is structurally flawed and never questions itself - there's never
any science done on science - since when did we earn the right to be one
corner of the natural world immune from scientific method? Is this a club or
a professional discipline? The current state of science - complete failure
to solve the physics of phenomenal consciousness - is a scientific
prediction of the state of science with the current virtual-solipsistic
belief stystem. - that is what science done on science tells you. We
scientists are the evidence....(except me, of course... I dissent!!! Long
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at