Colin Hales wrote: > > > 1Z > <snip> > >>Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 3:19 AM >> >>>>>>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...) >> > > > 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 > implication. > > As for an example of an instrumentalist ornithologists? Hmmm... perhaps ask > the utilitarianist nominalist paleontologists. They may know! :-) > > >>>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 ? > > > 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 >>>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. >> > > > [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 > consciousness. > > 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 > alpha-centaurian. > c) Now use the LAW OF TRAFFICS as a definition/construction primitive of > cars. > > 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.... > > Cheers > Colin Hales
So I ask again HOW would we act DIFFERENTLY if we acted "as-if" MIND EXISTED. So far the only difference I SEE is writing a lot of stuff in CAPS. Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---