Is Objectivity Realistic or a Human Illusion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kerrie
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of objectivity and its relationship to human subjectivity. Participants explore whether true objectivity is achievable, given that humans are inherently subjective beings influenced by emotions and personal experiences. They question the existence of an objective reality, suggesting that belief in it may stem from human nature and evolutionary processes. The conversation touches on philosophical perspectives, including those from Buddhism and the implications of quantum mechanics, which challenge conventional notions of reality. Some argue that while perfect objectivity may be unattainable, striving for it is essential for understanding and navigating reality. The interplay between objective truths and subjective experiences is emphasized, with the idea that both are necessary for a comprehensive understanding of existence. Ultimately, the discussion reflects on the complexities of perception, the limitations of human understanding, and the philosophical implications of defining reality.
  • #51
Originally posted by Royce
Agreed that the reasons and reasoning Tom gives are self referential;
but, at this level of reasoning it is all that is available.
We start with, "I am." The ulitmate self referential statement.

The next question to ask; "Is are there any other 'I's?"
This is one step from being self referentioal; but, since we have only established the "I am.", We are still restricted to self referential statements because that is all the we have.

Beyound these, we can step by step deduce the universe and objective reality, all through subjective self referential reasoning that gradually gives way to more and more objective reasoning, experiment and evidence.

Once we have reached this point, ie. objective reality via subjective self referential reasoning, why do we then deny the reality of the subjective, self referential? Is this not a contradiction in reasoning?

If we deny the existence of subjectivity are we not denying our own existence?
Are you trying to tell me you have an external reference point outside of yourself? How can that be? Then by all means jump out of your skin and tell me how it feels! :wink:

I don't think so, you would be dead! Unless of course you're one of those people who practices "out of the body experiences," but that only belies the fact that we have a soul. Which is also "self-referential."


Originally posted by Royce
Once we have reached this point, ie. objective reality via subjective self referential reasoning, why do we then deny the reality of the subjective, self referential? Is this not a contradiction in reasoning?

If we deny the existence of subjectivity are we not denying our own existence?
Ooops! Sorry, I didn't catch the last couple of lines there. :wink:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Originally posted by Royce
Once we have reached this point, ie. objective reality via subjective self referential reasoning, why do we then deny the reality of the subjective, self referential? Is this not a contradiction in reasoning?
Nope, this is a contradiction OF reasoning. :wink:
 
  • #53
Originally posted by drag
That is ridiculous, no offense. What kind of a blueprint
do you want ? And if there was something like this - would
you not need a blueprint for that something, too ?

Let’s break the argument down more simply.

Assume that the universe is created by my mind. I observe that the universe behaves in an orderly, predictable manner according to identifiable laws (which are approximations, but they are very good ones). If my mind is the source of the universe, then those laws should be in my mind somehow. But when I examine the contents of my mind, they aren’t there. So I conclude that my original assumption was false: The universe is not created by my mind.

Originally posted by drag
You are trying to reason of existence - all obsevation
through parts of itself. That makes no sense because a proof
of any kind has to be based on an independent reason(as far
as we've done it so far, at least).

No. The conclusion I reached was not used as a premise.

Originally posted by drag
Ridiculous, no offense, for the same reason. You wish
to define the whole using constituents and yet the constituents
are also defined by the whole.

?

No. This is an inductive argument based on observation. If one accepts the first argument, then the suggestion that the other people I observe are not creations of my mind, but are real bodies moving around “out there”.

Originally posted by drag
These are just self-referential
"reasons
(snip)

Originally posted by Royce
Agreed that the reasons and reasoning Tom gives are self referential;
but, at this level of reasoning it is all that is available.
We start with, "I am." The ulitmate self referential statement.

Obviously, neither of you knows what “self-referential” means. Perhaps you mean “circular”? If so, you are still wrong, because I did not use a circular argument. My first argument is deductively valid, and my second argument is a strong inductive argument.

The point that is most vulnerable to redress is my premise from the first argument:

If my mind is the source of the universe, then those laws should be in my mind somehow.

If you want to go into that further, then we can, but please no more of this nonsense about how my argument is “self-referential”. At least learn what the term means before you throw it at me.
 
  • #54
Greetings !
Originally posted by Tom
Let’s break the argument down more simply.
Let's do that. :wink:
Originally posted by Tom
Assume that the universe is created by my mind.
O.K.
Originally posted by Tom
I observe that the universe behaves in an orderly,
predictable manner according to identifiable laws (which are approximations, but they are very good ones).
Please, define "orderly and predictable".
Originally posted by Tom
If my mind is the source of the universe, then those laws
should be in my mind somehow. But when I examine the contents of my mind, they aren’t there.
How do you "examine the contents of a mind" ?

Not to mention that you're making a number of additional assumptions: that you - the mind is conscious, that the "mind" has "contents", that you can examine it, that you observe - able to process
and more.
Originally posted by Tom
So I conclude that my original assumption was false: The
universe is not created by my mind.
In short, you took an assumption and then applied YOUR
reasoning to it and arrived at a conclusion that the
Universe is not just in your mind.
Congratulations !

That means you are a materialist and your position is as
unbased and seemingly unprovable as the opposite mind hypothesys.
Originally posted by Tom
No. This is an inductive argument based on observation. If one accepts the first argument, then the suggestion that the other people I observe are not creations of my mind, but are real bodies moving around “out there”.
Why should I accept any arguments ? :wink:
Originally posted by Tom
Obviously, neither of you knows what “self-referential” means. Perhaps you mean “circular”? If so, you are still wrong, because I did not use a circular argument. My first argument is deductively valid, and my second argument is a strong inductive argument.
Deductivly valid ?!
Originally posted by Tom
The point that is most vulnerable to redress is my premise
from the first argument:

If my mind is the source of the universe, then those laws should be in my mind somehow.
But, they ARE in your mind ! They are what you observe -
and that is your mind according to the enitial assumption. :wink:

Are you assuming a sort of frame for the observation = Universe
to shape itself according to if it's all in the mind ?
If so what's the frame for that frame ?
Also, why should you ask such a question in the first place ?
Why do you assume causality ?
Originally posted by Tom
If you want to go into that further, then we can, but please no more of this nonsense about how my argument is “self-referential”. At least learn what the term means before you throw it at me.
Well, I would not presume to misuse complicated terms
that I have a difficulty of understanding. My objections
are very simple and basic and do not require complicated
terms. Please, let me know if I can rephrase self-referential
and the other similar terms into simpler ones that I will
be able to properly reason with on my low level.

Doubt or shout !

Peace and long life.
 
  • #55
Tom, "Self-referential" means referring to self. This is an invalid form of logic and in etymology. It does not mean circlular reasoning. It means to definine something by using itself in the definition.

I was, and am, supporting your argument.

I then carried it a bit further to point out that by using the subjective to validate the objective we then validate the subjective also. To do otherwise is a contradiction.

1. I or you use the subjective and self-referential (A) to
eventually, using you perfectly logical and valid argument,
prove the existence of objective reality (B).

2. If A is true then B is true.

3. This includes the reverse, If B is true, A is true.

4. By the same logic if A is untrue, B is untrue.

In otherwords by your reasoning if objective reality exists then subjective reality must also be true.

Iacchus, No, in this line of reasoning there is no external point of reference, nor is there any need for one.

Drag, Yes that is excactly what this line of reasoning is, pulling oneself up by ones bootstrap. That is why it is called bootstrapping in computer jargon. It is however the only way to proceed beyound the one absolute given starting point in philosophy and logic, ie "I am."
 
  • #56
Originally posted by drag
Please, define "orderly and predictable".

I mean that the phenomena I observe can be predicted accurately using the laws of nature as codified by science.

How do you "examine the contents of a mind" ?

One does it by mentally reviewing one’s knowledge.

Not to mention that you're making a number of additional assumptions: that you - the mind is conscious,
that the "mind" has "contents", that you can examine it, that you observe - able to process
and more.

So what? These are the most basic assumptions a person can make. I know I am conscious, because I am thinking and feeling. I know my mind has contents, because I know things. I know I can review those contents, because I can think about the things I have learned. I know that my mind is able to process, because I can deduce things from what I know, and the deductions also conform to my observations.

What’s more, you know that these things are true of yourself.

In short, you took an assumption and then applied YOUR
reasoning to it and arrived at a conclusion that the
Universe is not just in your mind.
Congratulations !

Yes, that’s right. There is no such thing as proving things in reality absolutely. Assumptions always have to be made. The best anyone can do is assume the premises that are more reasonable than their negations. I assume the negation of the premise, “the laws of nature are stored in my mind”, because when I consider all that I know, those laws are not there. I have to learn them by taking physics classes!

That means you are a materialist and your position is as
unbased and seemingly unprovable as the opposite mind hypothesys.

Both are unprovable, but that does not mean that solipsism is as plausible as materialism. For instance, to accept solipsism I have to accept that I have an innate knowledge of the workings of the universe, because solipsism says that the universe is a creation of my mind. But the fact is that I do not have such knowledge. My “innate understanding” of the workings of the universe pretty much conforms to Newtonian mechanics, because that is an accurate description of everyday experience. Since my “common-sensical” understanding of how the universe works is shaped by everyday experience, and that understanding is fundamentally flawed, that suggests to me that it was shaped by input from an external universe, rather than coming from within.

Why should I accept any arguments ? :wink:

If the premises are reasonably well established, and the logic is valid, then you have reason to accept an argument. Is that not obvious?

Deductivly valid ?!

*sigh*

Drag, I am not going to run around in circles with you over this. Deductive validity is not a matter of opinion. It is just as certain as 2+2=4. Either you accept the propositional calculus, or you do not.

I’ll explain it once. My first argument proceeded as follows:

Here are the statements:
p: An orderly, predictable universe was created by my mind.
q: My mind must have innate knowledge of the workings of that universe.

Here is the argument:
1. p (Premise)
2. p-->q (Premise)
3. ~q (Premise)
4. Therefore, ~p (Conclusion)

It’s a simple reductio ad absurdum argument,and it is deductively valid.

But, they ARE in your mind ! They are what you observe –

As I already explained, I have reasons for rejecting that the universe is only in my mind. I find it more reasonable to accept “p-->q” above than “~(p-->q)”.

and that is your mind according to the enitial assumption.:wink:

As I said, I am working via reductio ad absurdum. Surely you have done indirect proofs in your math courses?

Well, I would not presume to misuse complicated terms
that I have a difficulty of understanding. My objections
are very simple and basic and do not require complicated
terms. Please, let me know if I can rephrase self-referential
and the other similar terms into simpler ones that I will
be able to properly reason with on my low level.

FYI, “self-referential” has nothing to do with this discussion. That is a term that applies to formal systems, not the universe.
 
  • #57
Originally posted by Royce
Tom, "Self-referential" means referring to self. This is an invalid form of logic and in etymology.

Definition: A collection of statements is self-referential if it refers to the truth values of the constituent statements.

Example 1:
This sentence is false.

Example 2:
The sentence below is true.
The sentence above is false.

It does not mean circlular reasoning.

I know that, but since I did not use any self-referential statements, I was at a loss for what you two meant.
 
  • #58
Greetings Royce !
Originally posted by Royce
Drag, Yes that is excactly what this line of reasoning is, pulling oneself up by ones bootstrap. That is why it is called bootstrapping in computer jargon. It is however the only way to proceed...
?!?!?
BS !
(No offense. But com'mon ! )

Let me try this:
"I assume that everything is in my mind.

I see that I am able to reason with what I see.

If I am able to reason with what I see then clearly
I know the rules and laws in some basic form or else
why should I be making any sense of it all.

If I have this fundumental basis then all must be in my mind."

Case closed.
(NOTE: In NO WAY, is the above really considered by myself to
make any real sense. But, it sure sounds better than Tom's
argument, doesn't it ? )

Doubt or shout !

Peace and long life.
 
  • #59
Originally posted by Royce
1. I or you use the subjective and self-referential (A) to
eventually, using you perfectly logical and valid argument,
prove the existence of objective reality (B).

2. If A is true then B is true.

3. This includes the reverse, If B is true, A is true.

No, #3 is wrong. As I said in my post to drag, one of my premises has the form:

p-->q.

This does not entail

q-->p.

4. By the same logic if A is untrue, B is untrue.

Again, no. p-->q entails ~q-->~p, not ~p-->~q.

Drag, Yes that is excactly what this line of reasoning is, pulling oneself up by ones bootstrap. That is why it is called bootstrapping in computer jargon. It is however the only way to proceed beyound the one absolute given starting point in philosophy and logic, ie "I am."

Hopefully you can now see that that is not what I did.
 
  • #60
Drag, you obviously aren't even trying to put any thought into this.

Originally posted by drag
Let me try this:
"I assume that everything is in my mind.

I see that I am able to reason with what I see.

If I am able to reason with what I see then clearly
I know the rules and laws in some basic form or else
why should I be making any sense of it all.

If I have this fundumental basis then all must be in my mind."

Your argument goes like this:

The statements:
p: Everything is in my mind.
q: I am able to reason based on what I see.
r: I know the rules (of what? of nature?).

The argument:
1. q (Premise)
2. q-->r (Premise)
3. Therefore, p (Conclusion)

The conclusion is just tacked onto the end of the argument! This is a simple non-sequitur.


Case closed.

Pffft.

(NOTE: In NO WAY, is the above really considered by myself to
make any real sense. But, it sure sounds better than Tom's
argument, doesn't it ? )

Of course not. My argument is at least deductively valid. Of course, sincere people can disagree with my premises, but to compare the garbage you have written above with the logic of my argument is simply insulting.

Drag, I stepped into this thread because Iacchus was taking it off course, and I thought the topic was worth discussing seriously. Now, here you are doing the same thing. Do us all a favor and either get serious, or go clown around somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
  • #61
Greetings !
Originally posted by Tom
I mean that the phenomena I observe can be predicted accurately using the laws of nature as codified by science.
But they are not predicted with perfect accuracy
nor do you know all the laws. What is the limmit
between order and lack of it then ?
Originally posted by Tom
One does it by mentally reviewing one’s knowledge.
Can you prove "free will" ?
Can you make a reasonable argument using some sort
of reason in a consistent manner that will prove this ?
Originally posted by Tom
So what? These are the most basic assumptions a person can make.
Indeed they are ASSUMPTIONS.
I can accept them to some extent hence.
Originally posted by Tom
What’s more, you know that these things are
true of yourself.
They appear to be.
Originally posted by Tom
Yes, that’s right. There is no such thing as proving things in reality absolutely. Assumptions always have to be made.
Indeed, except existence itself.
Originally posted by Tom
The best anyone can do is assume the premises that are more reasonable than their negations. I assume the negation of the premise, “the laws of nature are stored in my mind”, because when I consider all that I know, those laws are not there. I have to learn them by taking physics classes!
That is precisely what I have a problem with. We can
leave the whole arbitrary basic reasonings and exact
definitions aside. However, I do not see any sense whatsoever
in that assumption. In fact, if it did appear to be so -
that I should have the laws as part of the mind, then it
would make no sense for only the mind to exist because the
laws of the laws would not make sense. However, if they
are not "in my mind" then it does make sense, to me.

Further more, although it's BS, I can even say I have the
Anthropic Principle on my side. The same way that it is used
to explain us in the Universe - I do not claim to be special
because if I weren't here then I couldn't think it, it can be
used to explain the mind part here - I am not at all special
so I should not assume that I could make such apparently great
sense of all that I see the way I do unless it was all
fundeumentally me - my own thought.

Again, no argument is true or absolute, but to me at least,
mine sounds a lot better. (We could make a poll. :wink:)
Originally posted by Tom
Both are unprovable, but that does not mean that solipsism is as plausible as materialism. For instance, to accept solipsism I have to accept that I have an innate knowledge of the workings of the universe, because solipsism says that the universe is a creation of my mind. But the fact is that I do not have such knowledge. My “innate understanding” of the workings of the universe pretty much conforms to Newtonian mechanics, because that is an accurate description of everyday experience. Since my “common-sensical” understanding of how the universe works is shaped by everyday experience, and that understanding is fundamentally flawed, that suggests to me that it was shaped by input from an external universe, rather than coming from within.
My argument sounds better. :wink:
Originally posted by Tom
If the premises are reasonably well established, and the logic is valid, then you have reason to accept an argument. Is that not obvious?
That is precisely the issue here. We are not dealing with
a precise abstract system like math here. There is no absolute
or defined or even apparently a limmited amount of ways to
reason. There are certain ways to reason that do seem
to bring more results for now. In this particular case, my
way just seems a lot better to me, apsecialy in light of the
important problem in your argument that I previously mentioned.
Originally posted by Tom
Drag, I am not going to run around in circles with you over this. Deductive validity is not a matter of opinion. It is just as certain as 2+2=4. Either you accept the propositional calculus, or you do not.
Deductive validity depends upon the method of deduction.
In the abstract system of algebra there is only one
method to make deductions. But, I see no limmits at all
imposed in philosophy, do you ? :wink:
Originally posted by Tom
q: My mind must have innate knowledge of the workings of that universe.
Could you, at least, present some deeper analisys of why
you think that's a simple deduction and what does it
mean to have innate knowledge, because I can alternativly
argue that we already do, because we can make pretty good
sense of things. My argument, for example, sounds a lot more
natural (to me).
Originally posted by Tom
As I said, I am working via reductio ad absurdum. Surely you have done indirect proofs in your math courses?
I've not participated in any such courses yet. I'm about to,
very soon. Again, I do not see how mathematical logic is
relevenat here. Your input/output/processing is not even in
the form of numbers or any other mathematical form - I mean
the content not the streuctural form of the argument. Further
more, you use abstract assumptions and make connections between
them according to a particular and seemingly unjustified
and subjective (=not-popular) line of reasoning that you've
selected(that has nothing to do with mathematics, btw).

Doubt or shout !

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #62
Originally posted by Tom
Drag, I stepped into this thread because Iacchus was taking it off course, and I thought the topic was worth discussing seriously. Now, here you are doing the same thing. Do us all a favor and either get serious, or go clown around somewhere else.
Or perhaps drag was under the same impression as me about Kerrie's original premise for posting this thread? In which case you have no grounds for saying this.

I don't think she was looking for grounds to dismiss the "Mind Hypothesis" outright -- which, it seems you're trying to do -- but rather discuss it.

Oh, and by the way, ever get the impression that people don't think you take them seriously?
 
  • #63

Tom: I mean that the phenomena I observe can be predicted accurately using the laws of nature as codified by science.

drag: But they are not predicted with perfect accuracy nor do you know all the laws. What is the limmit
between order and lack of it then ?


It does not matter that they are not perfect. What does matter is that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the proposition that the universe behaves according to immutable laws, to which the known laws of physics are a good approximation. As for the limit between order and lack of it, I don’t have a precise formulation of it (yet), but our ability to predict the results of experiments accurately and consistently is undeniable. I assume the proposition that the universe is orderly and predictable because it is more plausible than the negation.


Tom: One does it by mentally reviewing one’s knowledge.

drag: Can you prove "free will" ? Can you make a reasonable argument using some sort
of reason in a consistent manner that will prove this ?


I do not need to prove free will. Whether I decide to perform the above act or it is predetermined is irrelevant: I still know that it is happening.


Tom: So what? These are the most basic assumptions a person can make.

drag: Indeed they are ASSUMPTIONS. I can accept them to some extent hence.


You are stressing this to the point of being obnoxious. I know they are assumptions. One cannot proceed in an argument about reality without making some assumptions.


Tom: The best anyone can do is assume the premises that are more reasonable than their negations. I assume the negation of the premise, “the laws of nature are stored in my mind”, because when I consider all that I know, those laws are not there. I have to learn them by taking physics classes!

drag: That is precisely what I have a problem with. We can
leave the whole arbitrary basic reasonings and exact
definitions aside. However, I do not see any sense whatsoever
in that assumption. In fact, if it did appear to be so -
that I should have the laws as part of the mind, then it
would make no sense for only the mind to exist because the
laws of the laws would not make sense. However, if they
are not "in my mind" then it does make sense, to me.


I don’t follow. I am saying that the laws of nature are not innately known to my mind. You say you have a problem with my assumption, but then you go on to agree with it.


Further more, although it's BS, I can even say I have the
Anthropic Principle on my side.


If it’s BS, then why bring it up?


Again, no argument is true or absolute, but to me at least,
mine sounds a lot better. (We could make a poll. :wink:)

My argument sounds better. :wink:


I honestly do not see any logical argument from you here, and I also do not see where you disagree with my basic assumptions.


Tom: If the premises are reasonably well established, and the logic is valid, then you have reason to accept an argument. Is that not obvious?

drag: That is precisely the issue here. We are not dealing with a precise abstract system like math here. There is no absolute or defined or even apparently a limmited amount of ways to reason. There are certain ways to reason that do seem to bring more results for now. In this particular case, my way just seems a lot better to me, apsecialy in light of the important problem in your argument that I previously mentioned.


I don’t know what you’re talking about here. First, it is certainly the case that we are dealing with a formal abstract system in my first argument, because I am using propositional logic in that argument. Secondly, I do not see any problem with my argument that you have pointed out (at least not with the logic of it). And third, I don’t see a clear counterargument from you.


drag: Deductive validity depends upon the method of deduction.
In the abstract system of algebra there is only one
method to make deductions. But, I see no limmits at all
imposed in philosophy, do you ?:wink:


Of course I do. I cast my argument in the form of truth-functional propositions. Thus, I use the propositional calculus. No problem there.


Tom: q: My mind must have innate knowledge of the workings of that universe.

drag: Could you, at least, present some deeper analisys of why
you think that's a simple deduction and what does it
mean to have innate knowledge, because I can alternativly
argue that we already do, because we can make pretty good
sense of things. My argument, for example, sounds a lot more
natural (to me).


I am totally lost. First, what you quoted me on above is not a deduction, it is a premise. Second, “to have innate knowledge” means “to know without being taught” (use your dictionary, drag).


I've not participated in any such courses yet. I'm about to,
very soon. Again, I do not see how mathematical logic is
relevenat here.


It is relevant because I am seeking to present a deductive argument.


Your input/output/processing is not even in
the form of numbers or any other mathematical form


Actually, it is my understanding that the human brain can indeed be modeled as a formal logical system. It works like a sophisticated computer, which can definitely be so modeled.


I mean the content not the streuctural form of the argument. Further
more, you use abstract assumptions and make connections between
them according to a particular and seemingly unjustified
and subjective (=not-popular) line of reasoning that you've
selected(that has nothing to do with mathematics, btw).


Huh?

Which of my assumptions is “abstract”? What “subjective line of reasoning” did I use? Why is it “non-popular”? Why should I even care if it is “non-popular”?

You’re not making any sense here, drag. Why don’t you just take a day or to two to review what I have written so far? You clearly aren’t grasping the logic or the terms I am using, and I really do not want to have to explain the propositional calculus or what “innate” means. I am hoping to move beyond the ABC’s, and into what Another God referred to.

edit: fixed several brackets
 
  • #64
Greetings Tom !
Originally posted by Tom
Drag, you obviously aren't even trying to put any thought into this.
Thanks ! :smile:
It would not be very smart of me to mess around with
baseless philosophical ideas too much. That's why I ussualy
do not and I occasionaly try to help others by curing them
of this mind-blowing and mostly useless way of spending their
time online. :wink:
Originally posted by Tom
Your argument goes like this:
The statements:
p: Everything is in my mind.
q: I am able to reason based on what I see.
r: I know the rules (of what? of nature?).

The argument:
1. q (Premise)
2. q-->r (Premise)
3. Therefore, p (Conclusion)
Nope. My argument goes like this:

q: I am able to reason with what I see.
r: I have the rule built in because I am able to reason.

The argument itself :
p,q --> r --> p

You argument goes like this :

q: I can not see the rules in my mind (ridiculous btw, because
once you assume the mind is all in p and then you use the
mind to just mean your thoughts and ignore the "material"
parts of it all, as you might call it, then you're ignoring
the Universe itself the laws of which are developing in
your mind - according to p.).

The argument itself :

p --> q --> not p
Originally posted by Tom
The conclusion is just tacked onto the end of the argument! This is a simple non-sequitur.
And I suppose yours makes perfect sense.
DO YOU REALLY ACTUALY SEE IT THAY WAY ?!
Originally posted by Tom
Of course not. My argument is at least deductively valid. Of course, sincere people can disagree with my premises, but to compare the garbage you have written above with the logic of my argument is simply insulting.
It is self-insulting that you actually think there is an easily
apparent deductive reasoning that makes your argument deductivly
valid.
Originally posted by Tom
Drag, I stepped into this thread because Iacchus was taking it off course, and I thought the topic was worth discussing seriously. Now, here you are doing the same thing. Do us all a favor and either get serious, or go clown around somewhere else.
I'm not forcing you or anyone else to participate in this
forum. I would however expect you to show basic respect,
because if I wanted to treat your posts here like those of
a clown - believe me I'd raize waves of laughter.

Peace and long life.
 
  • #65
Originally posted by Iacchus32
I don't think she was looking for grounds to dismiss the "Mind Hypothesis" outright -- which, it seems you're trying to do -- but rather discuss it.

I agree, I don't think she was trying to do away with The Mind (objective idealism). In my initial post to Kerrie, I did not get into that. I only tried to get out of solipsism (subjective idealism). In fact, none of my arguments presented thus far really contradicts The Mind.

Oh, and by the way, ever get the impression that people don't think you take them seriously?

It's no big secret that I do not take irrationality seriously.
 
  • #66
Originally posted by drag
Nope. My argument goes like this:

q: I am able to reason with what I see.
r: I have the rule built in because I am able to reason.

The argument itself :
p,q --> r --> p

This is even worse! You have:

1. p (Premise)
2. q-->r (Premise)
3. Therefore p (Conclusion)

The conclusion is the same as premise 1. That is a circular argument, and can be used to "prove" anything.

You argument goes like this :

q: I can not see the rules in my mind (ridiculous btw, because
once you assume the mind is all in p and then you use the
mind to just mean your thoughts and ignore the "material"
parts of it all, as you might call it, then you're ignoring
the Universe itself the laws of which are developing in
your mind - according to p.).

The argument itself :

p --> q --> not p

And I suppose yours makes perfect sense.
DO YOU REALLY ACTUALY SEE IT THAY WAY ?!

More clowning around on your part.

No, drag, I clearly set forth the structure of my argument earlier. Read it.

It is self-insulting that you actually think there is an easily
apparent deductive reasoning that makes your argument deductivly
valid.

Get a clue, drag. The schema I posted is the schema of my argument, and it is valid. Here it is again:

1. p (Premise)
2. p-->q (Premise)
3. ~q (Premise)
4. Therefore, ~p (Conclusion)

I'm not forcing you or anyone else to participate in this
forum. I would however expect you to show basic respect,
because if I wanted to treat your posts here like those of
a clown - believe me I'd raize waves of laughter.

Drag, it is not me, but you who is failing to show respect. You have been misrepresenting my posts from the start. Stop it.
 
  • #67
Originally posted by Tom
I agree, I don't think she was trying to do away with The Mind (objective idealism). In my initial post to Kerrie, I did not get into that. I only tried to get out of solipsism (subjective idealism). In fact, none of my arguments presented thus far really contradicts The Mind.
Thank you.


It's no big secret that I do not take irrationality seriously.
But how do you define what is irrational? Wouldn't you agree that it's irrational to say the world is flat? And yet wasn't it considered "rational" until we discovered otherwise? There are a lot of things which may seem irrational, but are so only because we don't fully comprehend what it entails. Does that mean we should dismiss it then, as inconsequential? Or, would it be better to leave it as an open question, and not let it be influenced by our bias?

Hey I'm like this too, that unless I understand something, I don't commit it to my memory. And, although it may seem like I have a tendency to dismiss things (who me?), I tend to stick more with what I "know," but rarely does it involve deliberately offending someone else. Or, at least I try anyway.
 
  • #68
Greetings Tom !
Originally posted by Tom
It does not matter that they are not perfect. What does matter is that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the proposition that the universe behaves according to immutable laws, to which the known laws of physics are a good approximation. As for the limit between order and lack of it, I don’t have a precise formulation of it (yet), but our ability to predict the results of experiments accurately and consistently is undeniable. I assume the proposition that the universe is orderly and predictable because it is more plausible than the negation.
And yet, without some way of quantifying the whole
thing you can not even prove the likeliness of the whole
thing using any direct basis for your argument, can you ?

But, let's leave it at that, because actualy I do agree
with you on this. That does not mean that I see any real
reason for me to assume this order, for now.
Originally posted by Tom
I do not need to prove free will. Whether I decide to perform the above act or it is predetermined is irrelevant: I still know that it is happening.
My point is that if you, supposedly, are not in control
of the whole process then it's result is even more
doubtful. But, let's leave this issue too because it
ain't leading anywhere here.
Originally posted by Tom
You are stressing this to the point of being obnoxious. I know they are assumptions. One cannot proceed in an argument about reality without making some assumptions.
I am sorry. I was just making sure that the problem
that I enitially thought existed in your arguments
is indeed not a problem but rather my assumption from
the way you phrased your arguments. Nevertheless, I think
that it is important to emphasize these things even if by
just adding words like probably/seemingly/apparently in order
to avoid misunderstandings and misguide others.
Originally posted by Tom
I don’t follow. I am saying that the laws of nature are not innately known to my mind. You say you have a problem with my assumption, but then you go on to agree with it.
I was just exploring your argument in order to show
that it can become absurd rather easily, hence purhaps
it's not that good an argument.

That is, according to your argument if we should see these
innate laws then the mind assumption is correct. However, if
we see the laws then they too will need laws. (Your
argument is that things are apparently orderly and have laws
and even at such a basic reasoning level you already get causality -
you say there must be laws, something I, btw, avoid in my argument
because I only speak of the ability to reason rather than dealing
with laws directly.) If the laws will need laws then we appear
to get an infinite series of laws and hence, correct me if
I'm wrong, a fundumental inability of your argument of actually
prove (p) rather than (not p).
Originally posted by Tom
If it’s BS, then why bring it up?
Because it sounds better than your argument, no offense.
Originally posted by Tom
I honestly do not see any logical argument from you here, and I also do not see where you disagree with my basic assumptions.
It's not a matter of disagreement. It's a matter of
a totally different line of reasoning, that btw looks
more successful and unlike yours, apparently, capable of
proving (p) or not(p) and not just one of them. Further more,
of course, my argument arrives at the opposite conclusion.
Originally posted by Tom
I don’t know what you’re talking about here. First, it is certainly the case that we are dealing with a formal abstract system in my first argument, because I am using propositional logic in that argument. Secondly, I do not see any problem with my argument that you have pointed out (at least not with the logic of it). And third, I don’t see a clear counterargument from you.
Your argument is no more correct/inccorrect according
to propositional logic than mine is as I've tried to show
in my post above this one. But, that is just a matter of structure.

As for content - something you must have because eventually
you have to use an assumption about reality and thus you can, seemingly, never deal solely with structure in non-abstract
systems, well, the content of your argument does seem to
have a much more serious problem, as I've just explained.

Also, there is no counterargument from me because I do
not see a real need for one. Instead, I'm offering an
alternative argument and a seemingly pretty good one.
(Though if I had to make a descision I would still
personally prefer your conclusion, though doubtedly
as a result of your argument. I just don't like that mind stuff. Not that it really makes a difference, I guess...:wink:)
Originally posted by Tom
Of course I do. I cast my argument in the form of truth-functional propositions. Thus, I use the propositional calculus. No problem there.
I do not see any even remotely likely truth in the
"innate observable/or not laws in the mind" part.
In fact, I even showed you why it seemingly ruins the
whole argument.
Originally posted by Tom
I am totally lost. First, what you quoted me on above is not a deduction, it is a premise. Second, “to have innate knowledge” means “to know without being taught” (use your dictionary, drag).
What ? Oh well, I kin'na assumed you used it as a deduction
from the original mind assumption. If it's a separate premise
then I shouldn't've wrote it first in the argument line.
You can drop it from my argument's start, as well.

But, the reasoning that leads you to this premise is still
relevant. The dictionary is not at all what I meant. What
I meant was - why did you assume that we should "know" the laws
and what precisely does that mean - know them in temrs
of mathematical reasoning ? How about other potential reasoning ?

You see, my argument is general and adresses the
general ability to reason on the most basic level.
And even then - I conclude that it is a special thing.

You, on the other hand, assume that we should know all
the laws precisely (btw, in which reasoning form ?) in order
to justify the mind idea. And I simply do not see why you
want such strong(or even absolute ?)evidence before you start
supporting this (it's only supposed to be likely) idea.
Originally posted by Tom
It is relevant because I am seeking to present a deductive argument.
So ? I use the same structural form (with one more
component). That doesn't mean the content makes sense.
Originally posted by Tom
Which of my assumptions is “abstract”?
Well, to be thorough - all. Just like mine. As long
as you want to use your propositional logic on them
thus assigning truth values to them they can not
be attributed directly to reality.
Originally posted by Tom
What “subjective line of reasoning” did I use?
You assumed that for the Universe to be in our mind
we must know it's laws. Whether that is a deduction or
an assumption = premise I do not see why it should at
all be relevant. Purhaps if you answered my question
and ellaborated upon your relevant chain of thought here
rather than making pointless remarks about the dictionary
then purhaps I would understand why you thought this
"knowledge of the laws" is indeed a term that has anything
to do with the mind idea.
Originally posted by Tom
Why is it “non-popular”?
I said "subjective (=non-popular)" because eventually
objective and subjective are just matters of popularity -
what the majority considers objective is objective and
the opposite (nothing's certain, after all).

In this case, I feel that your term is a subjective term
because most people would not require such a term to be
sattisfied in order for the mind idea to be proven to them.
Aspecialy since I've explained why it is a problematic
term that can never actually be true.
Originally posted by Tom
Why should I even care if it is “non-popular”?
You shouldn't. You should stick to the thoughts that
seem most clear and best to you. But, the popularity
of such thoughts amongst the relevant people could
be a worthy indication of their worth. :wink:
Originally posted by Tom
You’re not making any sense here, drag. ...,
and into what Another God referred to.
Oh ? I thought I was making perfect sense. I also
think I understood all that you said to me. I do
find some of your propositional logic stuff quite
annoying though. In a few previous disccussions in the past
you seemed inclined to do the same thing once it appeared
that your arguments were being pushed too much, that is -
say you do not understand and start a totally irrelevant
propositional logic "attack". Purhaps, this is your favourite
way of understanding things, I don't know. However, unfortunetly
philosophy is one of the few fields where propositional logic
is apparently not very important, though it has its uses here too.
So, it is unfortunate that instead of really trying to
understand what you are being told you try to draw
logical diagrams and confuse yourself with such basicly
simple debates that just require a little bit of open-mindedness.

As AG's posts, I did not read them. I'll try to do so though.
Thanks.

Doubt or shout !

Peace and long life.
 
  • #69
Drag, this was the post I was hoping you would make.

That is, according to your argument if we should see these
innate laws then the mind assumption is correct. However, if
we see the laws then they too will need laws. (Your
argument is that things are apparently orderly and have laws
and even at such a basic reasoning level you already get causality -
you say there must be laws, something I, btw, avoid in my argument
because I only speak of the ability to reason rather than dealing
with laws directly.) If the laws will need laws then we appear
to get an infinite series of laws and hence, correct me if
I'm wrong, a fundumental inability of your argument of actually
prove (p) rather than (not p).

I don’t think the argument has that problem. All I am saying is that this universe that I am looking at exhibits patterns in the behavior that I observe. To each discernable pattern, I attribute a law. There is no need for the laws to have laws here.

It's not a matter of disagreement. It's a matter of
a totally different line of reasoning, that btw looks
more successful and unlike yours, apparently, capable of
proving (p) or not(p) and not just one of them. Further more,
of course, my argument arrives at the opposite conclusion.

As I noted in my last post, your argument is constructed circularly. It can be used to arrive at any conclusion you like. Here is the schema again:

1. p (Premise)
2. q-->r (Premise)
3. Therefore p (Conclusion)

You could just as easily substitute ~p for Premise 1 and for the Conclusion (or either of them seperately).

Your argument is no more correct/inccorrect according
to propositional logic than mine is as I've tried to show
in my post above this one. But, that is just a matter of structure.

This reflects your fundamental misunderstanding of propositional logic.

Propositional logic is only concerned with matters of structure, not with content. Your argument—-as you have written it—-fails the test for soundness because it is circular.

I do not see any even remotely likely truth in the
"innate observable/or not laws in the mind" part.
In fact, I even showed you why it seemingly ruins the
whole argument.

OK, this is what I was hoping to get into. If you recall, I identified it as a weakness of the argument and invited people to explore it. I am working on a post to address this.

Tom: It is relevant because I am seeking to present a deductive argument.

Drag: So ? I use the same structural form (with one more
component). That doesn't mean the content makes sense.

No, you don’t use the same structural form. Hopefully you can see that after reading my last post.

You assumed that for the Universe to be in our mind
we must know it's laws. Whether that is a deduction or
an assumption = premise I do not see why it should at
all be relevant.

It is relevant because words mean things. When you say, “deduction” (which is a process of going from one statement to another) and present only one statement, it just confuses me.

I do find some of your propositional logic stuff quite
annoying though. In a few previous disccussions in the past
you seemed inclined to do the same thing once it appeared
that your arguments were being pushed too much, that is -
say you do not understand and start a totally irrelevant
propositional logic "attack".

This also stems from your misunderstanding of propositional logic.

Drag, you are the one who brought up propositional logic here, not me. You are the one who made my formal reasoning an issue. You said that it was self-referential and you challenged its deductive validity. If discussions of formal logic annoy you, then don’t get into them. When you challenge my formal reasoning, I show you why I think my formal reasoning is correct. What annoys me is when someone makes a challenge to my posts and then moans about it when I answer the challenge.

Purhaps, this is your favourite
way of understanding things, I don't know. However, unfortunetly
philosophy is one of the few fields where propositional logic
is apparently not very important, though it has its uses here too.

Now, you are misunderstanding the place of formal logic in philosophy, because it’s everywhere in the field.

You could really benefit from reading the following article, and then going through a couple of books on logic and epistemology.
[url=[PLAIN]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-form[/URL]

Formal logic is the backbone of philosophy, and one should not be criticized for bringing it into a philosophical discussion. That is like criticizing someone for bringing mathematics into the Theoretical Physics forum and saying, “That’s annoying. You’re just doing that because you don’t know how to answer me, and you want to brush me off by telling me I don’t understand.” Nothing could be further from the truth. In my opinion, logic facilitates[/color] understanding.

So, it is unfortunate that instead of really trying to
understand what you are being told you try to draw
logical diagrams and confuse yourself with such basicly
simple debates that just require a little bit of open-mindedness.

You have got it so backwards here.

First, I am trying to understand what I am being told, and I am doing a good job of it. Your most scathing criticisms of me in this thread have been about my formal reasoning. As I said, when you say that my argument is self-referential or not deductively valid, you are challenging me to show you its structure and why it is in fact valid (or to fix it if it is not).

Second, my use of logic does not confuse me. To the contrary, it makes things crystal clear! The problem here is that you are making challenges to parts of my argument without really understanding what you are talking about. That is so painfully obvious, I don’t know how to make it any clearer to you, but you did prove it in spades by getting the schema of my argument totally wrong when you tried to post it. Also, the argument you posted that you claim has the same structure as mine clearly[/color] does not.

Third, I am quite open minded. I can see the strengths and weaknesses in different perspectives, and I do not mind being proven wrong, because that’s how I learn. I even presented a what I thought the weak point of my argument is, earlier today:

Originally posted by Tom
The point that is most vulnerable to redress is my premise from the first argument:

If my mind is the source of the universe, then those laws should be in my mind somehow.

If you want to go into that further, then we can, but please no more of this nonsense about how my argument is “self-referential”. At least learn what the term means before you throw it at me.

As I made crystal clear above, I was trying to steer the discussion away from the formal reasoning and towards the content of the argument[/color], but you wouldn’t let it go. And now, ironically, here you are clamoring for us to stop talking about form and start talking about content!

Well, it took all day, but now we can finally get to it.

edit: bracket
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #70
Originally posted by Tom
It does not matter that they are not perfect. What does matter is that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the proposition that the universe behaves according to immutable laws, to which the known laws of physics are a good approximation. As for the limit between order and lack of it, I don’t have a precise formulation of it (yet), but our ability to predict the results of experiments accurately and consistently is undeniable. I assume the proposition that the universe is orderly and predictable because it is more plausible than the negation.

Can one predict with any degree of accuracy, say, the future evolutionary track of a given species? Or, had we been there to observe in the distant past, would we -- or the brightest among us -- have been able to "predict" that dinosaurs would fly or that shrew-like creatures would someday have the wherewithal to build flying machines?

Without seque...and by mixing metaphors...I offer the following inquiry:

What if the Universe were like a "sea of potentialities" where "intention" IMPINGES on the "lynchpin" of "randomness" causing certain things to manifest while others do not?

Could INTENTION be intrinsic to a system where both randomness and potentialities "reside"? Or would a "force" like "intention" be as EXTRANEOUS to the equation as "God"?

Also, I've heard that mere OBSERVATION changes results in certain experiments. What's up with this?

Please offer your thoughts on this...before "they" come back for me. Thanks.
 
  • #71
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Can one predict with any degree of accuracy, say, the future evolutionary track of a given species? Or, had we been there to observe in the distant past, would we -- or the brightest among us -- have been able to "predict" that dinosaurs would fly or that shrew-like creatures would someday have the wherewithal to build flying machines?

Unfortunately, no. According to the materialist point of view, this is in principle possible, but one would have to know the exact physical state of the entire universe and the exact laws of physics by which the universe evolves in time. Also, we would need to have the computational power to generate a prediction. Alas, these are beyond us. The successes of theoretical science I refer to are on a much smaller scale, but still span an impressive range of scales (from quarks to galactic clusters).

Please offer your thoughts on this...before "they" come back for me. Thanks.

Sounds like you're in a hurry, but unfortunately I've got to go!

Till tomorrow,
 
  • #72
Also, I've heard that mere OBSERVATION changes results in certain experiments. What's up with this?
I don't know about Qm stuff, where there is all this 'indeterminancy' crap, but as far as I see in the big world that I live in, things follow their rules. Now How does observation change an experiment? Well, it changes it because you have to be somewhere to observe it, you have to have light to see the event (light affects things), you have to shoot electrons at the surface of it to observe if it is too small for light to reflect off it (electrons hitting things affects them), or if you are observing an ecosystem, you have to introduce yourself into the ecosystem (consequences for that), if you try to watch an animal in its 'natural state'...you are not natural etc...

That sort of thing. As far as I know, 'Observation' itself doesn't change anything, but to make something available for scientific observation necessarily changes it.
 
  • #73
Greetings Tom !
Originally posted by Tom
As I noted in my last post, your argument is constructed circularly. It can be used to arrive at any conclusion you like. Here is the schema again:

1. p (Premise)
2. q-->r (Premise)
3. Therefore p (Conclusion)
As I noted in my last post (and you ignored it for some reason ? :wink:)
I do not have to use p in my argyment as an enitial
premise anymore that you do. That's why I described your
argument as starting with p too, but then whe you said
it is a premise I said you can drop it from both your
and my sketch then.

So, your enitial premise is that you should see laws.
My enitial premise is that you should be able to reason.
Both are vague and undefinable, unless of course you meant
a methematical represantation of the laws. Again, if you explained
this point, you say you wish to discuss, more then purhaps
I could understand and hence appreciate it more.

BTW, my enitial point which you say you is not the issue here
(and I agree) still says that ANY argument, of the ones
that humanity has produced so far, is self-referential so
I was not mistaken when I said it. I just didn't know the
level at which you wanted to discuss this.
Originally posted by Tom
I don’t think the argument has that problem. All I am saying is that this universe that I am looking at exhibits patterns in the behavior that I observe. To each discernable pattern, I attribute a law. There is no need for the laws to have laws here.
I beg to differ. While we can assume for the sake
of this discussion that some forms of reasoning are "true",
I think it is a mistake to apply this reasoning in only
a partial manner whenever it suits you.

If you say you observe order and attribute laws to it
then are you not reasoning along the lines of - "order
is caused by laws" ? And if that is how you reason then
you're either making a specific reasoning rule of your own
or you're sticking to the general well-known rule of causality.

If you are sticking to causality then the laws must in
turn be cause by something else, shouldn't they ?

(Now I AM directly discussing you premise. :wink:)
Originally posted by Tom
As I noted in my last post, your argument is constructed circularly. It can be used to arrive at any conclusion you like.
As I noted in my last and this post that is not the case.
You can drop p from being an enitial premise. So, my argument's
dealing with the enitial premise that we "can reason
with observation". Now, it's your turn of discussing
your thoughts about my premise with me. Thanks.
Originally posted by Tom
Drag, you are the one who brought up propositional logic here, not me. You are the one who made my formal reasoning an issue. You said that it was self-referential and you challenged its deductive validity. If discussions of formal logic annoy you, then don’t get into them. When you challenge my formal reasoning, I show you why I think my formal reasoning is correct. What annoys me is when someone makes a challenge to my posts and then moans about it when I answer the challenge.
Like I said, on a more basic level all of our arguments
are self-referential (because the structure itself becomes
a content), but like you said - that's not the primary issue here.
Originally posted by Tom
Formal logic is the backbone of philosophy...
That is an unfortunate idea for any philosopher.
If you wish to reason solely through this type of
reasoning then you are doing science, not philosophy.
Philosophy has no exceptions and no limmit. Philosophy
invents the limmits that are then explored by science
and the resulting abstract systems.

(btw, your link ain't working.)
Originally posted by Tom
In my opinion, logic facilitates understanding.
Just the "formal type" that you were taught ? :wink:

What you were taught attempts to deal with the most
basic premises of any reasoning. But it even fails to include
QM, not to mention my imagination. :wink:
Originally posted by Tom
Second, my use of logic does not confuse me. To the contrary, it makes things crystal clear! The problem here is that you are making challenges to parts of my argument without really understanding what you are talking about. That is so painfully obvious, I don’t know how to make it any clearer to you, but you did prove it in spades by getting the schema of my argument totally wrong when you tried to post it. Also, the argument you posted that you claim has the same structure as mine clearly does not.
Like I explained above it clearly does have the same
structure because I just included p because I thought
you did. Like I said, it can be dropped from either argument.

If you failed to grasp my simple and short enitial argument in
this manner (or, purhaps, you did this on purpose ?), then you
are probably confused rather than seeing things crystal clear.:wink:
Originally posted by Tom
If my mind is the source of the universe, then those laws should be in my mind somehow.
Precisely what I'm foremost interested of discussing as well.
I'd also appreciate your feedback on my premise.
I was just approaching the whole thing systematicly from
all seemingly relevant angles because I did not know the
"background" of your premise just like I'm still unclear
about the precise issue of the premise itself.

Peace and long life.
 
  • #74
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What if the Universe were like a "sea of potentialities" where "intention" IMPINGES on the "lynchpin" of "randomness" causing certain things to manifest while others do not?

I'm not sure I follow. Let me try to rephrase your question in my words, and you tell me if that is what you are asking.

What if the universe had free will to choose between available states, such that what does happen is according to that will and what does not happen is not according to it?

Is that your question?

Could INTENTION be intrinsic to a system where both randomness and potentialities "reside"? Or would a "force" like "intention" be as EXTRANEOUS to the equation as "God"?

IMO predictable, mechanistic forces render the concept of a "universe with an intention" unfalsifiable, and therefore superfluous. It yields no pre[/color]dictions; only post[/color]dictions (as in: "See where Mercury is? It's there because the universe wanted it there.")

Also, I've heard that mere OBSERVATION changes results in certain experiments. What's up with this?

We need to be clear on the definition of "observer" in quantum mechanics. It has nothing to do with consciousness. An "observer" can be (and usually is) a dumb, lifeless instrument. Any apparatus that can be used to get a quantum system to assume an eigenstate of one of its observables could be called an "observer". One could get rid of the observer altogether by including it in the quantum mechanical system.
 
  • #75
are we still on topic?
 
  • #76
Originally posted by Kerrie
are we still on topic?
I'm not sure, but Tom and I are in the middle of a discussion
here and we'd greatly appreciate it if you allowed us to continue.:smile:
Thanks ! :smile:
 
  • #77
Originally posted by Kerrie
are we still on topic?

Not really, but I am trying...
 
  • #78
On the content of the premises

My response to drag was so long that it couldn’t fit into one post, so I divided it into two: one on content, and one on logic.

So, your enitial premise is that you should see laws.
My enitial premise is that you should be able to reason.
Both are vague and undefinable, unless of course you meant
a methematical represantation of the laws. Again, if you explained
this point, you say you wish to discuss, more then purhaps
I could understand and hence appreciate it more.

The solipsist thesis is that "The entire universe exists in my mind". Because I am arguing for objectivity, I want to argue against solipsism. So, my argument addresses both parts of the thesis, universe and mind. As to the former, I speak of universal laws and as to the latter, I speak of a priori knowledge of those laws. I want to address both sides of the thesis in an attempt to break it in two. That, I think, is a good strategy.

Your argument, on the other hand, begins and ends with "mind", because you talk about seeing and reasoning, two things involving the mind. I do not see how you can argue against the solipsist thesis this way.
Tom: I don’t think the argument has that problem (edit: the problem of infinite regress of laws upon laws upon laws..). All I am saying is that this universe that I am looking at exhibits patterns in the behavior that I observe. To each discernable pattern, I attribute a law. There is no need for the laws to have laws here.

drag: I beg to differ. While we can assume for the sake
of this discussion that some forms of reasoning are "true",
I think it is a mistake to apply this reasoning in only
a partial manner whenever it suits you.

But why do you consider it partial? The inference I am making is from observed patterns to universal laws that give rise to those patterns. I do not see why there should be an infinite regress. Certainly, our mathematical descriptions of those laws asymptotically approach the "true" laws, but my assumption here is that there is in fact only one true set of laws. That is the same assumption used by physics, and it works extremely well.

If you say you observe order and attribute laws to it
then are you not reasoning along the lines of - "order
is caused by laws" ? And if that is how you reason then
you're either making a specific reasoning rule of your own
or you're sticking to the general well-known rule of causality.

I am sensing a universe whose behavior exhibits certain patterns. Those patterns are decidedly mechanistic, because I can predict the outcomes of exeperiments to great accuracy (10+ decimal places with our best theories). I thus think it is more reasonable to believe that the universe works according to a fundamental set of rules. The question at hand is, "Is it reasonable to think that the universe exists in only in my mind if I do not have a priori knowledge of those rules?"

My premise that I set forth as "vulnerable" asserts that it is not, and that is what I am trying to figure out here.

I am making a simple "if...then" inference. I am saying that the order I observe is an indication of an overall universal blueprint.

If you are sticking to causality then the laws must in
turn be cause by something else, shouldn't they ?

Right. And what we are trying to figure out here is:

Are the laws of the universe caused by me (subjectivism) or are they caused by something outside of myself (objectivism)?

All I am trying to argue for here is that they are not caused by me. Beyond that, I do not have to argue for what they are caused by.

As I noted in my last and this post that is not the case.
You can drop p from being an enitial premise. So, my argument's
dealing with the enitial premise that we "can reason
with observation". Now, it's your turn of discussing
your thoughts about my premise with me. Thanks.

I am not really interested in your premise, for two reasons, one on the form and one on the content.

1. Formal objection: As I already pointed out more than once, your argument is not logically sound. If you leave "p" out, you get a non-sequitur, and if you leave it in you get a circular argument.

2. Content objection: Don't forget the topic of the thread, and what I am trying to show: that there is an objective reality. To show this, I have to start from the most basic position (solipsism) and argue that it is untenable. The solipsist thesis is that the universe exists as a creation of my mind. As I said, my argument addresses both sides of the thesis (universe and mind). Your argument begins and ends with the predicate term (mind), and I don't see how it can be used to any real effect.


Precisely what I'm foremost interested of discussing as well.
I'd also appreciate your feedback on my premise.
I was just approaching the whole thing systematicly from
all seemingly relevant angles because I did not know the
"background" of your premise just like I'm still unclear
about the precise issue of the premise itself.

Like I said, it's up to you to make a plausible case for your premise. What I am trying to do is start with an argument whose formal structure is in place and work out the premises. My questionable premise may not be true, but it is worth investiating because it does connect the two parts of the solipsist thesis.

As for my “if…then” premise, I regret that I did not get more of a chance to discuss it, but that is because you are keeping my hands full with your logic misunderstandings, which I will get to in my next post. If you want this thread to make progress, you have to do one of two things:

Either stop insisting that your logical mistakes are valid or drop the whole issue of logic until you learn it.

More on that in my next post.

edit: made a correction
 
Last edited:
  • #79
On the formal logic of this topic

Drag, for someone who doesn’t like discussions on formal logic, you sure do talk about it a lot!

Originally posted by drag
As I noted in my last post (and you ignored it for some reason ? :wink:)
I do not have to use p in my argyment as an enitial
premise anymore that you do.

No, I did not ignore it. Go back and see that when I first analyzed your argument, it was with the "p" left out. With that premise gone, the argument is a non-sequitur, and thus invalid. You then changed your mind to add the premise, which makes the argument circular, and thus unsound. Each form of the argument has a different terminal disease, but they have the same symptom: They can be used to prove any premise you like, and are thus useless.

On the other hand, the argument I presented is valid either way. I deliberately presented an argument that was obviously deductively valid specifically so we would not get hung up on formal logic, but...

BTW, my enitial point which you say you is not the issue here
(and I agree) still says that ANY argument, of the ones
that humanity has produced so far, is self-referential so
I was not mistaken when I said it. I just didn't know the
level at which you wanted to discuss this.

Again, with emphasis, since you are not using the correct definition of "self-referential", I do not know what you mean.[/color] It's fine to coin your own terms, but when you are using a proprietary definition of a term, you cannot expect me to know it without you communicating it to me. Royce seems to be using the term "self-referential statement" as a "statement to refers to myself". If that is what you mean, then there is no logical problem with that kind of "self-reference".

Tom: Formal logic is the backbone of philosophy...

drag: That is an unfortunate idea for any philosopher.
If you wish to reason solely through this type of
reasoning then you are doing science, not philosophy.

No, no, and no.

First, what I said is exactly in agreement with what philosophers teach and practice, and it is in no way unfortunate. Indeed, it is necessary. The conditions for theoremhood are rigorous and stringent, and they are codified in terms of formal logic. Indeed, when arguing about the nature of things we cannot directly observe, logical rigor is absolutely necessary[/color].

Second, I never said that I wish to reason "solely" with formal logic. In fact, I have stated numerous times, both here and in my Logic thread (which you have inspired me to revive!), there are two sides to building an argument. One is the discovery of truths (done by induction), and the other is drawing conclusions from those truths (done by deduction). You can't have one without the other.

Third, pure formal reasoning is not science![/color]. That branch of philosophy called "natural philosophy" (aka "physics") relies on the hypothetico-deductive method (both induction and deduction).

Philosophy has no exceptions and no limmit. Philosophy
invents the limmits that are then explored by science
and the resulting abstract systems.

I don't know what you mean by "exceptions", but philosophy most definitely has limits. It is limited by the human mind. Your comment about science seems to be not relevant.

(btw, your link ain't working.)

Right-click on it, click “Properties” and copy the url into your browser, if you are interested.

Tom: In my opinion, logic facilitates understanding.

drag: Just the "formal type" that you were taught ? :wink:

As opposed to what? The "informal" type? If so, then the answer is obviously "yes". Formal logic provides a clear roadmap to see whether or not one's reasoning is valid.

What you were taught attempts to deal with the most
basic premises of any reasoning.

Yes, and that’s exactly what you need to form a good argument[/color].

But it even fails to includeQM,

Nope. Go to http://xxx.lanl.gov and do a search for “quantum logic”. You’ll find more material than you can handle.

not to mention my imagination. :wink:

This is irrelevant. Why should your imagination be used as a philosophical standard? Now that is true subjectivity!

Like I explained above it clearly does have the same
structure because I just included p because I thought
you did. Like I said, it can be dropped from either argument.

No, drag, they do not have the same structure. I am going to show you one more time. I'll leave "p" out of both arguments.

My argument:
1. p-->q
2. ~q
3. Therefore, ~p

Your argument:
1. q-->r
2. Therefore p

They aren't the same. Just look at them! My argument is deduced by modus tollens, a well-known valid syllogism of propositional logic. Your argument is a simple non-sequitir. In fact, it is obviously so, as you have introduced a new logical variable in your conclusion that was not found in your premises. Case closed.

If you failed to grasp my simple and short enitial argument in
this manner (or, purhaps, you did this on purpose ?), then you
are probably confused rather than seeing things crystal clear.:wink:

No drag, I did grasp your initial point (edit: your point about the structure of our arguments being the same). It’s just that I know that your point is wrong. You simply do not know what you are talking about here. It is time for you to come off your high horse and admit that you do not understand formal logic and that you need to be taught. I can teach you, if you will swallow your pride. But these face-saving evasions by you are not going to help matters.

I posted the schema clearly before, and now I have posted them again right next to each other[/color]. If you still don't see that the two arguments have different structures, then you simply need to study some logic. Either way, it is time for you to stop insisting that you are right on this issue, because I have clearly and repeatedly shown you that you are wrong.

And as for this part:

If you failed to grasp my simple and short enitial argument in
this manner (or, purhaps, you did this on purpose ?),

This is ad hominem, and it is unacceptable. I warned you about it once, and I meant it.

I am here to do two things:

1. Teach
2. Learn

I am not here to twist people’s words around to make myself look good by making other people look bad, and I resent being accused of that. I especially resent the accusation coming from you, who has repeatedly[/color] done that very thing to me. You opened this post with an accusation that I was ignoring you, and you closed it with an insinuation that I am deliberately misconstruing your posts, and it would appear to any reasonable person that that is exactly what you are doing to me. Please stop it.
 
Last edited:
  • #80
Originally posted by Tom
I'm not sure I follow. Let me try to rephrase your question in my words, and you tell me if that is what you are asking.

What if the universe had free will to choose between available states, such that what does happen is according to that will and what does not happen is not according to it?

Is that your question?
No. Not it. The question of "free will" is not involved in my initial inquiry. There may or may not be "conscious choices" made by the Universe...but what I am talking about is an inherent mechanism whereby INTENTION -- which would be more like an "emotional force" that "senses" a "need" then impinges upon some sort of "gap" that "pushes" some things into existence while ignoring others. It would NOT be a "choice"...it would be more like the natural mechanisms of baryonic matter that cause elementary particles to join together to form atoms, and atoms to form molecules, up through larger natural systems.

However, when certain systems get to a degree of complexity where they become AWARE that INTENTION may CAUSE certain RESULTS...this could, perhaps, be "harnessed" in a "general way". IOW, while one can "make choices" about which ACTIONS to take, INTENTION reaches "further out" into "potentiality" and causes things to happen beyond one's ken.

Before I go further, I want you to know that I am still working with -- and on -- these ideas...including finding ways to talk about them.

Thus, I appreciate your questions ...and your attempt to paraphrase ...and your willingness to give me "a fair read".

IMO predictable, mechanistic forces render the concept of a "universe with an intention" unfalsifiable, and therefore superfluous. It yields no pre[/color]dictions; only post[/color]dictions (as in: "See where Mercury is? It's there because the universe wanted it there.")
But I thought that the feature of "randomness" render macro-views UNpredictable.

Yet your prior response suggests that "if only we could know EVERYTHING at a given moment, we would then know how things are going to turn out." (paraphrasing you). Yet, if randomness were truly random, we could NOT know everything, because we couldn't know what genes would mutate...nor how these mutations would be expressed. (Or, if you're saying we could then you'd be saying that EVERYTHING is PRE-DETERMINED...and, for some reason, I don't think you'd say that.)

One of the avenues of thought that brought be to my speculations about INTENTION has to do with looking at illustrations of species in evolution: one can almost "see" a bird "forcing" its beak outward...or a flying squirrel "willing" that flap of skin.

Can I ask that, over the course of the next year, as such things come into your field of vision, that you simply think about whether such a mechanism as intention, born of a "perceived need", might ACT UPON seemlingly random events, causing certain things to manifest to "fill a need"?

Once again, I am not saying that the Universe ever says to Itself: "Now let's put Mercury here, and Pluto there...and the Earth a certain distance from its star." It would be more like "I'm out to have an Experience, so I need to create a "place" with the right conditions to give rise to entities that interact with each other. Please don't take me too literally, nor infer that I think the Universe talks to itself. I'm just trying to express an idea...and a half-baked one at that. AND...don't get me started on my speculations regarding physicality, consciousness and spirit...TOO LATE!...that the Universe creates -- as a natural process of Itself -- systems that function as "setting, info processing and experience storage", respectively ...because I don't want my credibility to go down the toilet with you just yet.)


We need to be clear on the definition of "observer" in quantum mechanics. It has nothing to do with consciousness. An "observer" can be (and usually is) a dumb, lifeless instrument. Any apparatus that can be used to get a quantum system to assume an eigenstate of one of its observables could be called an "observer". One could get rid of the observer altogether by including it in the quantum mechanical system.
Got it. A recent post by "Another God" was helpful for me see the distinctions. However, that fact that the "observer" is not sending "waves of intention" that influence experiments does not NECESSARILY mean that INTENTION is not in play somewhere within the System that we call the Universe.

Meanwhile, if "unfalsifiable" means you can't prove that a speculation is WRONG, does it really follow that it's not worth thinking about...as the word "superfluous" might imply?
 
Last edited:
  • #81
Greetings !

The content message response:
Originally posted by Tom
The solipsist thesis is that "The entire universe exists in my mind". Because I am arguing for objectivity, I want to argue against solipsism. So, my argument addresses both parts of the thesis, universe and mind. As to the former, I speak of universal laws and as to the latter, I speak of a priori knowledge of those laws. I want to address both sides of the thesis in an attempt to break it in two. That, I think, is a good strategy.
Intresting.
Originally posted by Tom
Your argument, on the other hand, begins and ends with "mind", because you talk about seeing and reasoning, two things involving the mind. I do not see how you can argue against the solipsist thesis this way.
My argument is in favor of solipsism, if you hadn't noticed...:wink:

My argument attempts to connect solipsism and the potential
outside reality by examining the connection that defines and
thus also makes a distinction between the two. That connection
is what we call thought. Solipsism is just the existence of
thought, period. Objective reality is the possible existence
of at least some "not thought".

Now, my enitial assumption doesn't try to connect the two, like
you say yours does, but rather tries to emphasize this fundumental
difference between the two approaches.

Now, to restate my argument in light of the above - if there
exists "not thought" then it takes a "part" of some of existence
as a whole. Since by definition it is not thought then the conclusion
from this would seem to be that there must be a fundumental
inability of our thought to match the not-thought. But, apart
from the mutual mystery of their existence there doesn't appear
to be such a fundumental difference of some total misunderstanding
of the not-thought part, that we are aware of. Further more,
applying the anthropic principle here, as questionable its
use here as it may be, we can say thay our apparently great
ability of understanding the potential not-thought is certainly
not a positive argument for its existence at all.

Of course, my argument relies on another premise that you're
also using - that we indeed observe laws and a high level of order.
I'm not sure that we can at all say why such a premise is likely, btw.

Are you following me ?
Makes any sense to you ?
Originally posted by Tom
But why do you consider it partial? The inference I am making is from observed patterns to universal laws that give rise to those patterns. I do not see why there should be an infinite regress. Certainly, our mathematical descriptions of those laws asymptotically approach the "true" laws, but my assumption here is that there is in fact only one true set of laws. That is the same assumption used by physics, and it works extremely well.
Hmm... Again I note that purhaps my objection was on a
too basic level. Indeed, I agree that at this less basic
level such things can be ignored.
Originally posted by Tom
I am sensing a universe whose behavior exhibits certain patterns. Those patterns are decidedly mechanistic, because I can predict the outcomes of exeperiments to great accuracy (10+ decimal places with our best theories). I thus think it is more reasonable to believe that the universe works according to a fundamental set of rules.
Again, to me at least, the connection here remains obscure.
What kind of an argument do you think could be presented that would
make that connection (between 10+ decimal places predictions
and the likeliness of actual order and laws )?
Originally posted by Tom
The question at hand is, "Is it reasonable to think that the universe exists in only in my mind if I do not have a priori knowledge of those rules?"
Well, I do see a certain problem that I think is worth
mentioning. You see, there is, to me at least, no clear
and apparent connection between the "knowldge of the rules"
and "the specific type of observation of the rules in action
that we appear to see". This is another weakness of the
argument, I think, that threatens the validity of that "connection" that you mentioned - between the two possibilities.
Originally posted by Tom
Right. And what we are trying to figure out here is:

Are the laws of the universe caused by me (subjectivism) or are they caused by something outside of myself (objectivism)?

All I am trying to argue for here is that they are not caused by me. Beyond that, I do not have to argue for what they are caused by.
That's a misunderstanding of my objection. Like I said
above, I guess it was just dealing with too basic a level
of the reasoning in and of your argument so it's irrelevant
and better be put aside to allow us to deal with the
releavant specifics here.
Originally posted by Tom
1. Formal objection: As I already pointed out more than once, your argument is not logically sound. If you leave "p" out, you get a non-sequitur, and if you leave it in you get a circular argument.
How's that ?
Originally posted by Tom
2. Content objection: Don't forget the topic of the thread, and what I am trying to show: that there is an objective reality.
The thread is dealing with both possibilities, I believe. :wink:
Originally posted by Tom
To show this, I have to start from the most basic position (solipsism) and argue that it is untenable.
HOW IS SOLIPSISM A BASIC POSITION ?!
Originally posted by Tom
The solipsist thesis is that the universe exists as a creation of my mind. As I said, my argument addresses both sides of the thesis (universe and mind). Your argument begins and ends with the predicate term (mind), and I don't see how it can be used to any real effect.
I restated my argument in this message in a potentialy
clearer form. I would appreciate it if you adress it now.
Originally posted by Tom
Like I said, it's up to you to make a plausible case for your premise.
Indeed.
Originally posted by Tom
As for my “if…then” premise, I regret that I did not get more of a chance to discuss it, but that is because you are keeping my hands full with your logic misunderstandings, which I will get to in my next post. If you want this thread to make progress, you have to do one of two things:

Either stop insisting that your logical mistakes are valid or drop the whole issue of logic until you learn it.
First of all, I'm sorry that you felt that way about
presenting your premise in detail and I hope that this
message will finally show you that I too am interested
(from the start, btw) to see your presentation on the subject.

Second, while the ideas themselves here may be somewhat complex,
puting then together certainly doesn't seem to be so.
If my lack of technical knowledge in precisely formulating
my arguments, so that they would technicly please you accordingly,
is cause enough for you to simply discard them rather than
adress their assense and help me adjust them accordingly (other
people mostly had no problem of understanding me on the
Phil. forum before regardless of these small technical
problems, in fact, practicly all of them are also guilty then :wink:),
then I'm not at all certain that you actually want this
thread to make any progress, like you said, beyond showcasing
your own ideas. No offense.

I'm a bit short on time so I'll have to adress your second
post a bit later, I appologize for the delay. :smile:

Peace and long life.
 
  • #82
Originally posted by drag
My argument is in favor of solipsism, if you hadn't noticed...:wink:

If you believe is solipsism, why are you talking to Tom?
 
  • #83
Originally posted by drag
My argument is in favor of solipsism, if you hadn't noticed...:wink:

Oops, right. My mistake.

But surely you can see the pointlessness of arguing for solipsism. Exaclty with whom are you arguing? One cannot convince anyone but himself of solipsism.

My argument attempts to connect solipsism and the potential
outside reality by examining the connection that defines and
thus also makes a distinction between the two. That connection
is what we call thought. Solipsism is just the existence of
thought, period. Objective reality is the possible existence
of at least some "not thought".

OK, but we are now having two distinct conversations here. I'll probably start a new thread.

Now, to restate my argument in light of the above - if there
exists "not thought" then it takes a "part" of some of existence
as a whole. Since by definition it is not thought then the conclusion
from this would seem to be that there must be a fundumental
inability of our thought to match the not-thought. But, apart
from the mutual mystery of their existence there doesn't appear
to be such a fundumental difference of some total misunderstanding
of the not-thought part, that we are aware of. Further more,
applying the anthropic principle here, as questionable its
use here as it may be, we can say thay our apparently great
ability of understanding the potential not-thought is certainly
not a positive argument for its existence at all.

What does it mean for our thought to "match" the not-thought?

Of course, my argument relies on another premise that you're
also using - that we indeed observe laws and a high level of order.
I'm not sure that we can at all say why such a premise is likely, btw.

It's not all that important how likely that statement is to be true right now. Theories are built from the top down. It is more important to paint the big picture at first. When that is done, and if the argument is valid, then you can say that your conclusion is at least as plausible as the least plausible premise. Then you go about determining the plausibility of the premises.

Are you following me ?
Makes any sense to you ?

Sort of.

Again, to me at least, the connection here remains obscure.
What kind of an argument do you think could be presented that would
make that connection (between 10+ decimal places predictions
and the likeliness of actual order and laws )?

The exploration of the universe is such that we are constantly probing more and more fundamental constituents of matter. We find that solids are made of molecules, molecules are made of atoms, atoms are made of electrons and nuclei, nuclei are made of nucleons, nucleons are made of quarks, etc. As we develop theories that deal with more fundamental constituents of matter, their accuracy improves. This trend leads me to propose that there is one set of laws by which one set of fundamental building blocks behaves.

Well, I do see a certain problem that I think is worth
mentioning. You see, there is, to me at least, no clear
and apparent connection between the "knowldge of the rules"
and "the specific type of observation of the rules in action
that we appear to see". This is another weakness of the
argument, I think, that threatens the validity of that "connection" that you mentioned - between the two possibilities.

Solipsism states that universe I observe is a product of my mind. If I can say that the universe operates according to a single set of rules, then I have to ask, "Where did the rules come from"? They could only have come from my mind, if solipsism is true, because nothing other than my mind exists. So, if I can logically derive from the solipsist thesis the necessity of that knowledge being in my mind, then I can break solipsism, because I know that the knowledge isn't there.

Tom: 1. Formal objection: As I already pointed out more than once, your argument is not logically sound. If you leave "p" out, you get a non-sequitur, and if you leave it in you get a circular argument.

drag: How's that ?

I've typed this out a number of times already, but briefly:

1. p (Premise)
2. q-->r (Premise)
3. Therefore, p

is circular and...

1. q-->r (Premise)
2. Therefore, p

is a non-sequitir. In both cases, you are free to conclude anything you like. See my second post, the one on the formal logic of our two arguments, for more disucssion.

The thread is dealing with both possibilities, I believe. :wink:

Right. I got lost in one side of it.

HOW IS SOLIPSISM A BASIC POSITION ?!

It is the most basic position because it operates on the fact that all we know is from our own minds. The sensory data we perceive is all processed in our minds, and we have no access to anything other than our own mental states. But solipsism goes too far in saying that "because all I have access to are my mental states, only my mental states exist".

I restated my argument in this message in a potentialy
clearer form. I would appreciate it if you adress it now.

Give me a little more time, OK?

First of all, I'm sorry that you felt that way about
presenting your premise in detail and I hope that this
message will finally show you that I too am interested
(from the start, btw) to see your presentation on the subject.

I'll present this either Monday or Tuesday.

If my lack of technical knowledge in precisely formulating
my arguments, so that they would technicly please you accordingly,
is cause enough for you to simply discard them rather than
adress their assense and help me adjust them accordingly

Well, I already outlined an argument for solipsism here. It starts from the basic position that "I am thinking". It then correctly notes that "my mental states are the only mental states to which I have access", and concludes with "my mental states are the only mental states".

(other people mostly had no problem of understanding me on the
Phil. forum before regardless of these small technical
problems,

The problems I pointed out here are not small. The schema you are using can be used to present any conclusion you like, including the negation of it. That is pretty major!

in fact, practicly all of them are also guilty then :wink:),

Yes, they are. Most people who post here are more prone to "creative writing" than "philosophy". I would refer interested persons to posts written by Another God, Fliption, Ahrkron, and LW Sleeth for good examples of the latter.

then I'm not at all certain that you actually want this
thread to make any progress, like you said, beyond showcasing
your own ideas.

It's not that I am trying to showcase my own ideas, it's that I am trying to argue a case that everyone already lives according to anyway. Everybody lives with the tacit assumption that there exists an objective reality of which they are merely a part. My goal is to present a coherent justification of that.

"Philosophy" is supposed to be "love of wisdom". I take this to mean "love of wisdom pertaining to life". That said, philosophical pursuits that are of only academic interest hold little interest for me. Solipsism is just another way of saying, "I am god". Most people don't believe that, and most people don't live their lives according to solipsism. That, combined with my opinion that arguing with another person about solipsism is pointless (how will you convince me that I am not conscious?) leads me to say that this line of thinking is not "love of wisdom", but "love of foolishness".

No offense.

Same here.
 
Last edited:
  • #84
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
If you believe is solipsism, why are you talking to Tom?

Exactamundo. You hit it right on the head.

From http://www.vexen.co.uk/3/solipsism.html

Solipsism
Solipsism is the belief that, because we can only verify our own experiences and no-one elses, only the self is real. This page presents arguments that this is not true.

Problem One: Explaining Solipsism to someone
However a problem is faced in Solipsism when you try to explain this belief to someone else. You see, it is nearly impossible to convince anyone that this could be true. There are only two ways to convince someone that Solipsism is true:

You have to convince them that *they* are valid, and that you yourself are a projection of their own self. However they'll know you can't possibly believe this yourself.

So, you have to convince them that they are a projection of your imagination. Which they simply will never believe, because they are conscious themselves.
It appears, using this simplistic approach to Solipsism, to be impossible to state that you yourself are the only valid consciousness in a meaningful way, because anyone who you tell it to will automatically disbelieve you. That is a major problem, it makes Solipsism workable only as a completely private belief. It doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true, if you do honestly believe that all the people around you are automatons of your own creation, and do not posess independent consciousness.

Problem Two: There can only be one!
It seems only one person in the world can be a solipsist and be correct in their belief. If two Solipsists ever meet, one of them are wrong in their belief. This problem begins to appear as a symptom of a great problem of solipsism: It might not actually be true.

edit: Gaspar, as to your other post, I am open to talking about it, but I don't see how you plan to connect it to "objectivity vs. subjectivity" (the subject of this thread). Is that your plan? If not, then perhaps you should start a new thread.
 
Last edited:
  • #85


Originally posted by Tom
I am sensing a universe whose behavior exhibits certain patterns. Those patterns are decidedly mechanistic, because I can predict the outcomes of exeperiments to great accuracy (10+ decimal places with our best theories). I thus think it is more reasonable to believe that the universe works according to a fundamental set of rules.

Then what of human behavior? Aren't we part of the Universe? Yet one cannot predict the actions of SELF at any given moment, let alone an OTHER...or OTHERS. If a System that seems mechanistic and predictable can give rise to sub-systems that are organic and unpredictable, what would this mean for the System as a whole?

I know this off-topic...but germane to me.
 
  • #86


Originally posted by Tom
... I never said that I wish to reason "solely" with formal logic. In fact, I have stated numerous times, both here and in my Logic thread (which you have inspired me to revive!), there are two sides to building an argument. One is the discovery of truths (done by induction), and the other is drawing conclusions from those truths (done by deduction). You can't have one without the other.

...pure formal reasoning is not science![/color]. That branch of philosophy called "natural philosophy" (aka "physics") relies on the hypothetico-deductive method (both induction and deduction).

...Formal logic provides a clear roadmap to see whether or not one's reasoning is valid.

...Yes, and that’s exactly what you need to form a good argument[/color].

Why should your imagination be used as a philosophical standard? Now that is true subjectivity!

admit that you do not understand formal logic and that you need to be taught. I can teach you, if you will swallow your pride. But these face-saving evasions by you are not going to help matters.

I am here to do two things:

1. Teach
2. Learn

I was looking for another post of yours, but found these.

Who was it who said: "When the student is ready, the teacher will come."?

Unfortunately, I am left-brain-dead...but willing.

Now, to find that other post...
 
  • #87
Originally posted by Tom
Exactamundo. You hit it right on the head.

Gaspar, as to your other post, I am open to talking about it, but I don't see how you plan to connect it to "objectivity vs. subjectivity" (the subject of this thread). Is that your plan? If not, then perhaps you should start a new thread.


Yes, I've recognized from the start that I've been inserting my interests in a thread where they don't belong...but I wanted input from a certain source.

My threads are "A Conscious Universe?" and "The Nature of Spirit"...but I would think that, had you been interested, you would have visited same on your own.

If your area of interest is "logic" then I think I can address questions here in a way that test the logic I have used -- or avoided -- to get me to my current speculations...without having to get into the speculations themselves. Or, perhaps it won't work out.

If I remain off-topic, just give me the boot.

Meanwhile, I could not find the paragraph I was looking for...the one about building a theory from the top down. If you find it, please include it with your (final?) post to me, this thread. Thanks.
 
  • #88
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
My threads are "A Conscious Universe?" and "The Nature of Spirit"...but I would think that, had you been interested, you would have visited same on your own.

Yes, I skipped over them due to a lack of interest. I don't believe in spirits, and I do believe that consciousness is inextricably associated with brains. But, if you are asking for me, I will come.

If I remain off-topic, just give me the boot.

I think it is off topic, so why not start a thread, or direct me to a thread that already exists?

Meanwhile, I could not find the paragraph I was looking for...the one about building a theory from the top down. If you find it, please include it with your (final?) post to me, this thread. Thanks.

It's in my last post to drag.
 
  • #89
Originally posted by Tom
It's not all that important how likely that statement is to be true right now. Theories are built from the top down. It is more important to paint the big picture at first. When that is done, and if the argument is valid, then you can say that your conclusion is at least as plausible as the least plausible premise. Then you go about determining the plausibility of the premises.

The exploration of the universe is such that we are constantly probing more and more fundamental constituents of matter. We find that solids are made of molecules, molecules are made of atoms, atoms are made of electrons and nuclei, nuclei are made of nucleons, nucleons are made of quarks, etc. As we develop theories that deal with more fundamental constituents of matter, their accuracy improves. This trend leads me to propose that there is one set of laws by which one set of fundamental building blocks behaves.

...Most people who post here are more prone to "creative writing" than "philosophy". I would refer interested persons to posts written by Another God, Fliption, Ahrkron, and LW Sleeth for good examples of the latter.

It's not that I am trying to showcase my own ideas, it's that I am trying to argue a case that everyone already lives according to anyway. Everybody lives with the tacit assumption that there exists an objective reality of which they are merely a part. My goal is to present a coherent justification of that.

"Philosophy" is supposed to be "love of wisdom". I take this to mean "love of wisdom pertaining to life". That said, philosophical pursuits that are of only academic interest hold little interest for me. Solipsism is just another way of saying, "I am god". Most people don't believe that, and most people don't live their lives according to solipsism. That, combined with my opinion that arguing with another person about solipsism is pointless (how will you convince me that I am not conscious?) leads me to say that this line of thinking is not "love of wisdom", but "love of foolishness".

I have gathered and condensed these for my own reasons.

Will start a thread shortly. Thanks.
 
  • #90
Hurdles to Solipsism

I've been thinking some more about the strategy of breaking the solipsist thesis in two, as well as some other ways to do it. Here are three hurdles to that thesis that I can think of.

1. The No A Priori Knowledge of the Laws of the Universe Hurdle

This was the one I came up with originally, codified in my premise:

"If the universe is a creation of my mind, then I must have an a priori knowledge of the laws of the universe."[/color]

But I do not have such a priori knowledge.

Admittedly this is the weakness of the argument, as it is difficult to prove. I now even think it might be wrong, as I do not even have an innate understanding of my own mind. But, I'll leave it here in case anyone else has a good argument for it.

2. The Imperfect Memory Hurdle
Let's take a simpler premise that conforms to the strategy of separating the universe from my mind, but in a much simpler way. Instead of talking about the laws of the universe, let's talk about things in the universe.

I'll codify this in the following premise:

"If the universe is a creation of my mind, then I must have perfect mental representations of the things in the universe, even when I am not 'looking' at them."[/color]

But I do not have perfect mental representations of objects in the universe when I am not looking at them.

I came up with this while seeing an ornate stained glass window on a chruch on the way to work. When I see the window, my mind recognizes it, presumably because my mind latches onto certain cognitive tokens it has stored about the window. However, when I am not looking at the window, I cannot form a perfect image of it in my mind, and I certainly cannot draw the pattern on a piece of paper. This would seem to pose a serious problem for solipsism, because according to that thesis, the window is supposed to have existence only in my mental states. So why can I not retrieve the window when I am not looking at it? Do I have two sets of mental states with which to create universes? If so, then that would imply that I have two minds, which to me is untenable.

3. The Other Minds Hurdle Revisited
I had originally expressed The Problem of Other Minds as a secondary argument based on behavioralism. I put it second because I had to argue that the bodies I observe have an existence independent of my mind, and the second argument only made sense if one accepted that conclusion.

However, there is an epistemological issue that can be brought up in the first instance. Let's say there is a scientist in England who makes an observation of, say, the Andromeda galaxy that I had never made before. Let's further say that he telephones me and tells me of his findings. I wait for the Earth to rotate so that I can make the observation, and I find that he is correct. This, to me, is new knowledge, but it seems that my friend in England possessed the knowledge before I did, since I have no a priori knowledge of the workings of the universe prior to observing it. Since the other scientist has knowledge, he must have mental states, and the solipsist thesis is falsified.

I'll codify this in the following premise:

"If the universe is a creation of my mind, then I must not be able to receive new knowledge from people in the universe."[/color]

But I do receive new knowledge from people in the universe.

edit: numbered the Hurdles
 
  • #91
Greetings !
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
If you believe is solipsism, why are you talking to Tom?
Who said I believe in solipsism ?!
I try not to believe at all. I am not supportive of either
solipsism or materialism. Further more, I think that occasionaly
the people who do believe in one of these approaches tend
to give it too much meaning and credit for things that are not
at all part of the basic premise, which is reflective of their
personal bias that "convinced" them of a specific approach.

What I was doing is trying to show that arguments for/against
solipsism/materialism are as huge in number as the amount
of ways of approaching the subject and each of them may be
supportive of either possibility.

Tom, to tell you the truth my argument is problematic
because it deals with thought, which is in itself a problematic concept because first of all it's basic and thus has no definition and because it is not necessarily present whether solipsism is right or wrong. But, like I said, there are huge if not infinite
ways of approaching the subject.

The best, simplest and most basic way of approaching solipsism
and materialism, in my opinion, is as I recently wrote in one of Mentat's threads:
Solipsism says - observation = existence and
materialism says - observation = part of existence (or even none).

It is also rather simple to see here why no decisive
solution is, apparently, possible.

As for your points(I will try not to slide into the most basic
level - wher it naturally becomes pretty easy and boring, but
rather try to oppose them on their own level, as much as possible
of course :wink:):

1. Reading some of what you said in your last response I
can say that this apparently reaches "down" to the PoE itself.
That is, if indeed solipsism says that ALL is in the mind
then it does indeed clearly mean that we must at least
know the rules (even if the connection of them and their
application and them also apparently being part of the
application still doesn't make sense). However, with the
PoE directly in mind at this point, we can avoid this problem
(like any other at this most basic level).

2. I guess we can't get rid of this one without the same
"drop" of reasoning as in 1.

3. I do not see the problem here. You are not supposed to
be receiving ANY data at all, if it wasn't for time which
is apparently another basic term, apparently. But, making
distinctions of the type of data is a materialist's problem.

In simpler terms, I could equivalently say that the fact
that I can hear an apple falling from a tree and then
I see the moment that it fell is somehow a sign of an
external mechanism (intellegence ?) at work. No. I receive
data all the time and this type of distinctions is irrelevant
for solipsism - it's not a reasonable proof of other
interacting minds.

btw, the "trend" argument, that you mentioned in your response,ragarding the observation of the Universe as
orderly - does appear to be reasonable, but it still
seems impossible (as expected) to make any objective scale
of the issue.

Also, I was wondering what, if at all, was your answer
to Descartes's statement - "I think, therefore I am." in Mentat's
poll ?

Doubt or shout !

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #92
And another important hurdle to the solipsist hypothese is this:
consciousness is not entirely based on individual minds, but exists ar a societal level too. For exmple the fact that we have spoken and written language, indicates that we are living in a reality that at least consists of more as one separate and individual mind. If that would not be the case, then why would there be any spoken or written language?
 
  • #93
Originally posted by heusdens
And another important hurdle to the solipsist hypothese is this:
consciousness is not entirely based on individual minds, but exists ar a societal level too. For exmple the fact that we have spoken and written language, indicates that we are living in a reality that at least consists of more as one separate and individual mind. If that would not be the case, then why would there be any spoken or written language?
Or maybe a solipsist somewhere is just
imagining that we have language...so he can talk to himself.
 
  • #94
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Or maybe a solipsist somewhere is just
imagining that we have language...so he can talk to himself.

Then he is perhaps hallucinating cause there are thousands of languages
 
  • #95
Is there an objective reality

The topic of this thread wether or not there is an objective reality.

For those who really doubt, I would advise to take their assumptions into consequential considerations, and follow the line of thought completely for both cases.

A line of thought might for instance proceed as follows: think about anything you know that you think has objective existence, or might have objective existence. Just anything and everything. Then try to imagine the world without that. And follow the line of thought repeatedly until you arrive at an imagination of the world in which nothing objectively exists.

Now please come back after conceiving or having imagined such a reality (perhaps this works best when closing your eyes) --- and don't be affraid: reality will still be there after you have reopened your eyes --- and tell me your experience.
 
Last edited:
  • #96


Greetings !

heusdens, the issue is indeed doubt, but it is a doubt of
ANY hypothesys. Basicly, any reasoning we use, as you suggested,
is eventually not absolute (apparently, for now).
The key is to include rather than exclude.

Live long and prosper.
 

Similar threads

As old as blood. The conflict between thinkers.
Replies
6
Views
4K
B Actions of subatomic particles while under observation
Replies
7
Views
1K
I Can the "measurement problem" just be an "epistemological ambiguity"?
Replies
15
Views
2K
Forum game: Finding the Golden Record
Replies
1
Views
2K
The Illusion of Free Will: A Scientific Perspective
4
Replies
199
Views
34K
Three new books to read about expertise vs. democracy
Replies
4
Views
3K
How to Watch a UFO: Tips for Identifying Unidentified Flying Objects
Replies
4
Views
4K
A Choices of Axiomatic and Number Systems / Sets and Alternatives
Replies
2
Views
2K
What is the Meaning of Our Existence?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Is my fictional Solar System stable and realistic?
Replies
21
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top