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.
What's the difference? > We think that > predicting 'seeing' What do you mean by 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! :-) I have to say, I found your porrf to be pretty incomprehensible. > > > > > 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. So It *is* part of (etc) the world ? > 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? Not really. > There is no objective view in this. Only appearances. We are NOT directly > accessing the external world. We never have and we never will. How do you know ? > > 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?] Neurons, presumably. > 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 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---