Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: > > > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> Brent meeker writes: > >> > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> > > John, > >> > > > >> > > Even a real solipsist might eat, sleep, talk to people etc., all > >> under the impression that everything is a > >> > > construction of his own mind. People willingly suspend disbelief in > >> order to indulge in fiction or computer > >> > > games, and a solipsist may believe that he is participating in the > >> greatest and most perfect of games. I > >> > > think that most real solipsists would eventually go mad and start > to > >> believe that the game is reality. > >> > > >> > And that would make a difference how? > >> > > >> > Brent Meeker > >> It wouldn't make any difference: if solipsism were true, people would > behave exactly as they do behave, > >> most of them not giving the idea that there is no external world any > consideration at all, the rest deciding > >> that although it is a theoretical possibility, there is no practical > purpose served by worrying about it. > > > > Their explanation, if they have any, as to why they behave > > as they do would be peppered with "as ifs". Solipisism is > > for people who prefer certainty to understanding. > > > > COLIN HALES: > Yay!.... someone 'got' my little dialogue! > > The point is that scientists are actually ALL tacit solipsists.
My point was that scientists *do* prefer understanding to certainty, and therefore are *not* solipsists. I can't think of anything I have said, or that you have said, that leads to the conclusion that scientists ingenreal are solpsitsts. (I'm still wiating for an example of an instrumetalist ornithologist...) > 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'. It isn't a real truth. if it were, it wouldn't matter how they behave. > 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, What are "we", if we are neither mind nor world ? > 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 > follows: > > where: > 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 > magical fabricator. > > 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. Or we are just conscious OF things ,and they are NOT "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 Why should it have a phsyics ? Is there a physics of stock markets ? Surely consicousness is a high-level phenomenon. > - 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 > and hard!!!) > > cheers > colin hales --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---