Alternative Theory of Consciousness: "Fine, then How Do You Explain It?

[selfAdjoint]

I think axioms are the attempt to capture the essence of some concept in a minimal set of self consistent statements. If a concept lends itself to such description, it is called well-defined. Belief and truth have nothing to do with it; the axioms may well describe a concept that could never be instantiated in our collectively agreed upon reality.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I think axioms are the attempt to capture the essence of some concept in a minimal set of self consistent statements. If a concept lends itself to such description, it is called well-defined. Belief and truth have nothing to do with it; the axioms may well describe a concept that could never be instantiated in our collectively agreed upon reality.

Is that a fact?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
Ever heard that they said that whatever the other guy said was total gibberish?

They did? Whoa! How did the historians miss that?!

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
As far as I am aware, Dennett has never stated that ... the rest of the population are somehow foolish fish for not understanding, and coming to the same understanding as he has. He has never said that the truth of his statements are self-evident, and so there is no purpose for questioning.

No, he's apparently hired Mentat to do that for him

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat

Deductive and Inductive reasoning...

Deductive:
Solipsism postulates something.
The thing that Solipsism postulates precludes outside testing.
Therefore, Solipsism can never be tested/proven.

Inductive:
Well, basically, nobody's done it before.

How is it that this unprovable philosophical idea can be given the boot and called bad philosophy when "materialism", an equally unprovable and contrary idea, is so passionately defended? Especially when the practice of science doesn't necessarily require either?

 

[FZ+]

They did? Whoa! How did the historians miss that?!

Ok, ok, excuse a little hyperbole... I just mean that there is glaring inconsistencies between what each says, and so compromises must be made to unite them - compromises which a majority of believers reject.

No, he's apparently hired Mentat to do that for him

Heh. Ok, then alert me when anyone says anything that sound absolutist... Consciousness in my humble opinion, is a very fuzzy subject, but I feel that a materialist approach is currently most productive in exploring it.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
No, he's apparently hired Mentat to do that for him

Hey! [b(] I never said that, I was just presenting reason why his is a good conclusion (maybe the best conclusion), but not the only logical conclusion.

[edit] I changed a smilie[/edit]

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
How is it that this unprovable philosophical idea can be given the boot and called bad philosophy when "materialism", an equally unprovable and contrary idea, is so passionately defended?

I guess Materialism can't be tested either, but what about the skeptic argument against Solipsism (namely, that, if nothing existed except for what was in my mind, then the very distinction between "things that exist in my mind" and "those other things, which don't exist" is non-sensical). Besides, doesn't Solipsism challenge Russell's paradox (at least I think it was "Russell's"), which states that no set can contain intself, and thus the set of all things that exist in the mind could not be contained in the mind, and would thus not exist?

Especially when the practice of science doesn't necessarily require either?

Well, the Scientific Method assumes Materialism (since you make observations about a part of the objective reality before forming hypotheses as to how it works).

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
I guess Materialism can't be tested either, but what about the skeptic argument against Solipsism (namely, that, if nothing existed except for what was in my mind, then the very distinction between "things that exist in my mind" and "those other things, which don't exist" is non-sensical). Besides, doesn't Solipsism challenge Russell's paradox (at least I think it was "Russell's"), which states that no set can contain intself, and thus the set of all things that exist in the mind could not be contained in the mind, and would thus not exist?



Well, the Scientific Method assumes Materialism (since you make observations about a part of the objective reality before forming hypotheses as to how it works).

You're saying that science assumes a non testable philosophical idea? Actually, I think I agree with Tom on this one. I recall that LifeGazer used to always claim that science was biased and limited itself by assuming that materialism was true. On one particular thread Tom spent a good amount of time explaining to him that science assumed no such thing. Science can be practiced in the Matrix as well.

 

[FZ+]

Well, more accurately science at the minimum assumes a sort of functional materialism - ie. the material aspect is worthwhile, though it may not be the only thing.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
You're saying that science assumes a non testable philosophical idea? Actually, I think I agree with Tom on this one. I recall that LifeGazer used to always claim that science was biased and limited itself by assuming that materialism was true. On one particular thread Tom spent a good amount of time explaining to him that science assumed no such thing. Science can be practiced in the Matrix as well.

No, I must have mis-stated...Science itself makes no assumptions, except those of the Method...these can, indeed, be practiced by a Solipsist, but it just seemed inconsistent with the Solipsistic philosophy, to study something outside of theirself.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by FZ+
Well, more accurately science at the minimum assumes a sort of functional materialism - ie. the material aspect is worthwhile, though it may not be the only thing.

Basically, you are saying it is based on skepticism, right? Skepticism, basically, says that the Solipsistic notion that "everything is part of some on-going dream that I (the only thing that really exists) am having" is non-sensical, since there is nothing to compare "parts of the dream" with (to ascertain whether they are "real" or not). Therefore, science makes no claim as to the truth of Solipsism, or Materialism, but takes the skeptic approach, and assumes that it doesn't matter either way - unless a dividing line is discovered, between what is "real" and what is not.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
No, I must have mis-stated...Science itself makes no assumptions, except those of the Method...these can, indeed, be practiced by a Solipsist, but it just seemed inconsistent with the Solipsistic philosophy, to study something outside of theirself.

But it wouldn't be studying something outside of themselves. In this case it would be study yourself . You assume that what is experienced is external because you are a materialist. But you can't hold a solipsist responsible to that notion.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
But it wouldn't be studying something outside of themselves. In this case it would be study yourself . You assume that what is experienced is external because you are a materialist. But you can't hold a solipsist responsible to that notion.

Very true, except the for the skeptic rebuttal (as previously mentioned). If there is nothing outside of my mind, then there is no difference between things in my mind, and things outside of it (the very distinction is non-sensical). Therefore, one would simply take the part that constitutes my dream-"body" as "me" and everything else as "objective".

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
Very true, except the for the skeptic rebuttal (as previously mentioned). If there is nothing outside of my mind, then there is no difference between things in my mind, and things outside of it (the very distinction is non-sensical). Therefore, one would simply take the part that constitutes my dream-"body" as "me" and everything else as "objective".

I'm not sure I understand this skeptic rebuttal that you described above in response to FZ.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
I'm not sure I understand this skeptic rebuttal that you described above in response to FZ.

Sorry. I'll try to explain it better (as I had just assumed he'd know what I was talking about)...

Solipsism dictates that there is nothing to "reality" except that which exists in my mind (I say "my mind", because, if I were a Solipsist, I wouldn't think there were any other minds). The Skeptic's response is that the distinction (implied by having said "nothing but that which exists in my mind") is non-sensical, since, if Solipsism is true, and there isn't anything else, then there's nothing to compare that which exists in your mind to. IOW, it doesn't make sense to call every event in life a part of an on-going "dream", since a dream is something you wake up from (back into the real world), while you never wake up from reality, and thus have nothing to compare your world to.

 

[Mentat]

Hypna, where are you? Hast thou forsaken this discussion?