Colin Hales wrote:
>>Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 3:19 AM
>>>>>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.
>>>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
> I disagree and can show empirical proof that we scientists only THINK we are
> not being solipsistic.
> We ARE actually -methodologically- solipsistic because consciousness
> (phenomenal consciousness itself) = [seeing itself] is not accepted as
> evidence of anything. We only accept the 'contents' of phenomenal
> consciousness' = [that which is seen] as scientific evidence. We think that
> predicting 'seeing' will come from the act of analysing that which is
> seen... this is logically fallacious. Like observing the behaviour of
> monalisa within the painting and then using that behaviour to divine canvas,
> paint and an artist: silly/illogical.
> This behaviour is 'as-if' we are solipsists - that we do not believe mind
> (other minds) exist. We are being inconsistent in an extremely fundamental
> way. This is a complex and subtle point - a cultural blind of enormous
> As for an example of an instrumentalist ornithologists? Hmmm... perhaps ask
> the utilitarianist nominalist paleontologists. They may know! :-)
>>>way a solipsist can exist is to outwardly agree with the massive
>>>confabulation they appear to inhabit whilst inwardly maintaining the
>>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
>>>inward belief of Bishop Berkeley-esque magical intervention on a massive
>>>scale without actually realising it. The whole delusion is maintained by
>>>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 ?
> Your words assume that mind is not part of/distinct from/intrinsically apart
> from the world. This is a linguistic trap.
> WE are inside a universe of stuff, WE are made of stuff with
> perceptions(appearances) of stuff constructed by stuff behaviour. When WE
> look as atoms WE are seeing stuff behave atomly. Other stuff in our heads
> paints atoms to look like that. Does that make sense?
> There is no objective view in this. Only appearances. We are NOT directly
> accessing the external world. We never have and we never will.
>>>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
>>>conclusive proof supporting continued fervent adherence to the belief in
>>>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
>>>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"
>>>"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
>>>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
>>>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
>>>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
>>>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
>>>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
>>>.....each different approach results in the same basic conclusion....
>>>science is structurally flawed and never questions itself - there's
>>>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
>>>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.
> [A glass of water] is a high level phenomenon of [water atoms]
> [consciousness] is a high level phenomenon of [what?]
> You can't have a high level phenomenon of a collection of "something"
> without a "something". This belief is called 'magical emergentism'. In
> consciousness studies you can claim [what?] to be something seen with
> consciousness. The point is that the [what?] above will not be viewable with
> That does not mean we can't be scientific about it. What it means is that
> the permission to examine potential [what?] is a behaviour currently
> prohibited by science because of the virtual solipsism I speak of. To speak
> of the [what?] is to speak of something that creates SEEING but is not SEEN
> directly. The correctly chosen [What?] will enable seeing that makes the
> seen look like it does, so 'seeing' is actually viable indirect evidence.
> If scientists are being virtual-solipsists by failing to accept seeing as
> evidence of something then seeing will never be explained. Do you 'see' how
> this blind works? Think of it like this:
> a) study New York traffic from Alpha-Centauri
> b) devise a very predictive 'LAW OF TRAFFIC'. It seems, when you make an
> observation (see) of something it travels at a certain speed. This becomes
> the 'LAW OF TRAFFICS' (we know it is mediated by local traffic regulations).
> This is a behaviour you can 'see' from alpha-centauri as an
> c) Now use the LAW OF TRAFFICS as a definition/construction primitive of
> This does not make sense.
> If CARS are what is used to see things (on alpha-centauri!) and you only
> accept direct observation as scientific evidence you'll never get to explore
> something that can be cars and therefore never get to explore seeing. What
> you have is 'speed limits'. You'll all talk with each other as if you live
> in a universe literally constructed of 'speed limits' (The LAW OF TRAFFICS)
> when it's actually made of cars.
> Generalise it and apply it to human? Take any law of physics. The universe
> is NOT made of a law of physics. It's made of something that behaves 'as-if'
> it does when we LOOK at it and devise a rule to predict it. This does not
> mean the universe is made of the rules we devise. None of the rules will
> explain LOOKing. The logic is the same.
> That is what I am talking about and that is the effect of science's 'as-if'
> solipsism. An underlying structure (eschewed as metaphysics) is responsible
> for 'Seeing'. Despite this amazing evidence provider being actually demanded
> by science to provide scientific evidence, the underlying structure is
> regarded as devoid of evidence. This happens when the underlying structure
> is more directly 'evidenced' by the act of acquiring scientific evidence
> than whatever it is supplying as 'that which is seen'.
> This is yet another version of the solipsism - acting as if MIND does not
> exist. I have been in and around this in so many ways.... it always comes
> out the same....
> Colin Hales
So I ask again HOW would we act DIFFERENTLY if we acted "as-if" MIND EXISTED.
the only difference I SEE is writing a lot of stuff in CAPS.
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