Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shades]

- If it is constructed for me, then there would be far less complex interactions between others when I am not around. Wars, politics, engineering, and so forth that I am incapable of understanding would not happen.

- Thus our expectations would more often be validated, rather than disproven.
- We would have proved long ago that diseases are caused my the balance of 4 bodily humors, that light and spirit travel in ether, and the human soul would weighs 21 grams. These were all dominant theories for a very long time.

- Our consciousness's, the only things we can be sure exist, are not complex enough to create the experiences we have
- Even if our consciousness was complex enough to create experiences, they would not agree with the world we actually do experience
- Every form of existence that requires a continually made construct around us would necessitate several things
1. That the senses we have are continuously updated with science-consistent information

None of the above conclusions actually follow from your stated arguments.

- Eyes should not have blood vessels over the very things that sense light

As an aside not all eyes do, but I agree the human eye is generally a bad design. One of many.

[malimbar04]

None of it follows? really? I'm rereading it and I'm not seeing the fault.

If a world is constructed for an observer, and is more complex then the observer itself, then what's to say that the observer exists any more than the construction? That's true even from the observers perspective I think.

[Il Palazzo]

You're too philosophical, malimbar04. Just do as we all do, and start a flamewar or something. Alternatively, you can post something obviously stupid, so that we here can feel superior and clever.

[malimbar04]

You're too philosophical, malimbar04. Just do as we all do, and start a flamewar or something. Alternatively, you can post something obviously stupid, so that we here can feel superior and clever.

Lol. But I'm not as good at flame wars.

[Shades]

None of it follows? really? I'm rereading it and I'm not seeing the fault.

All the unstated ifs and assumptions. You start this assumption, which although a reply to my quote isn't even close the conclusion of that philosophy (although is to the unrelated brain in the jar set you mention)

- If I am the measure of intelligence, then I exist (the original conclusion to that philosophy)

You then follow this up with

- If other people are at least as intelligent as me, or come up with things that I do no think of, then I know that they exist as much as I do.

Which doesn't follow at all even if the first conclusion is true. You've added others assumptions in there, at the very least that perceived intelligence is as real and perceived intelligence exists.

The next line you have is:

- If other people exist separately from my own conscious, and they exist, then they would continue to exist when I stop thinking about them.

Why does the conclusion there follow the assumption. Just because they exist separately doesn't mean they stop or otherwise when you can perceive them.

As the rest of your trail builds up on these I'll stop here because it should be clear how your logic is failing.
Of course all this ignores the fact I'm not even sure what your trying to show here, possibly your commenting on a post a way back in the thread?

[Il Palazzo]

I'll just drop it here:
http://www.viruscomix.com/page433.html

(I only recognize Dawkins, who are the other three?)

[Shades]

Probably Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens

[malimbar04]

- If I am the measure of intelligence, then I exist (the original conclusion to that philosophy)

You then follow this up with

- If other people are at least as intelligent as me, or come up with things that I do no think of, then I know that they exist as much as I do.

Which doesn't follow at all even if the first conclusion is true. You've added others assumptions in there, at the very least that perceived intelligence is as real and perceived intelligence exists.

The next line you have is:

- If other people exist separately from my own conscious, and they exist, then they would continue to exist when I stop thinking about them.

Why does the conclusion there follow the assumption. Just because they exist separately doesn't mean they stop or otherwise when you can perceive them.

As the rest of your trail builds up on these I'll stop here because it should be clear how your logic is failing.
Of course all this ignores the fact I'm not even sure what your trying to show here, possibly your commenting on a post a way back in the thread?

Forgive me in my ignorance, but I still don't quite see the failing. Maybe if I explain the first parts with what assumptions I'm basing my conclusions on? Maybe you could tell me what faulty assumptions I have that I don't realize? I'll repeat the parts you quoted more in depth, because you're right that we can't progress if the basic assumptions are not accepted.

Assumption 1.1: The only way we can measure anything with perception (in the definition of perception)
Assumption 1.2: Because I can measure anything, I have perception (self evident in the definition)
Conclusion 1: My perception exists,
Assumption 2.2: I have intelligence (being processing capability of the standard of human)
Conclusion 2: I exist (as defined by my measure of processing capability and perception)

Everything comes from those, and then testing various theories against it.

Assumption 1.1: I have intelligence (as defined above), and my perception exists (as defined above)
Assumption 1.2: The existence of intelligence and perception define existence of an intelligent/perceptive entity
Assumption 1.3(testing): The reality that I experience is non-existent, and given to me falsely from without
Assumption 1.4(testing): Other people are part of this non-existence
Conclusion 1 (testing): Other people have no perception or processing capability
Test: Ask other people questions, if they perceive and process this information (evidenced by their unexpected reply), then Assumption 1.4 is false

Assumption 2.1: (same as 1.1)
Assumption 2.2: Other people have the same characteristics of intelligence and perception that I have (as evidenced by test 1)
Conclusion 2: As far as I exist (as far as I can measure), so do other people

I'll stop here unless further request. I also assume I have a form of memory, and we can copy the same logic to test that others have memory as well (ask them a question which you do no know the answer but can figure out. If they figure out the conclusion seperately and report back, you prove they have memory. The proof is in the fact that they reported back, since we already know they are capable of processing and perception. Should I continue my line of reasoning, or are there already unforgivable flaws that I don't see?

[malimbar04]

Probably Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens

Definitely, They call themselves the four horsemen.

[Shades]

Assumption 1.1: The only way we can measure anything with perception (in the definition of perception)
Assumption 1.2: Because I can measure anything, I have perception (self evident in the definition)
Conclusion 1: My perception exists,

Assumption 2.2: I have intelligence (being processing capability of the standard of human)
Conclusion 2: I exist (as defined by my measure of processing capability and perception)

Although it's not really a conclusion as your not testing anything. It is part of the definition which leads me back to accepting these as a base assumptions. This is really a nit picky terminology thing. These are your basic starting assumptions.

Assumption 1.3(testing): The reality that I experience is non-existent, and given to me falsely from without
Assumption 1.4(testing): Other people are part of this non-existence
Conclusion 1 (testing): Other people have no perception or processing capability
Test: Ask other people questions, if they perceive and process this information (evidenced by their unexpected reply), then Assumption 1.4 is false

How does this test disprove assumption 1.4? This seems like a leap of logic, unless your assuming the only way you can get an unexpected reply is from outside influence, but then your almost using your conclusion to prove itself. What are you actually trying to show here?
It looks like your trying to prove the whole of existence isn't just in your head?

[malimbar04]

Assumption 1.3(testing): The reality that I experience is non-existent, and given to me falsely from without
Assumption 1.4(testing): Other people are part of this non-existence
Conclusion 1 (testing): Other people have no perception or processing capability
Test: Ask other people questions, if they perceive and process this information (evidenced by their unexpected reply), then Assumption 1.4 is false

How does this test disprove assumption 1.4? This seems like a leap of logic, unless your assuming the only way you can get an unexpected reply is from outside influence, but then your almost using your conclusion to prove itself. What are you actually trying to show here?
It looks like your trying to prove the whole of existence isn't just in your head?

Here I am testing to see if the "other people" fit the same definition of existence that my own existence. Up to this point I've accepted that I exist based only on the fact that I can perceive and that I can process information. If other people can perceive and process information, then they would also fit the definition. Up to this point am not addressing whether it's in my head or not, only whether they fit the same definition as I do.

So a person, in order to exist insofar as I exist to this point, needs to qualify 2 criteria:
- percieve information
- process information
If I ask them a question, such as "do you have any children", then in order to respond they must fit both. They must perceive the question, perceive the meaning behind it, process the meaning, rely on other information to which I am not privy, and reply in a way that is comprehensible to me. Up to this point, I am not testing their knowledge, their honesty, or anything besides their ability to do the two things which define existence outside of myself.

[Shades]

In that case I misunderstood your wording for existence outside of yourself and agree your test is valid. Although with the limited conclusion I'm not sure it proves anything useful

[malimbar04]

In that case I misunderstood your wording for existence outside of yourself and agree your test is valid. Although with the limited conclusion I'm not sure it proves anything useful

Not yet, which is where the rest of it comes in! If we're on the level of the absolute basics, I'll continue with what I hope are small steps in logic.

Assumption 1.1: I can perceive and process information, thus I exist
Assumption 1.2: I have a store of information from which I draw information (evident by my ability to process information that I am not perceiving)
Assumption 1.3 (testing): I can contribute to this store of information, thus making it a form of memory
Alternative assumption 1.3 (testing): I can not contribute information to this store, as it is given from without
Test: Process some sort of benign information, then process it again later. For example, attempt to process the equation of (5* 20/400)+3. If you don't know the result instantly, the information is not yet in your memory store. When processed, it equals 100/400 +3 or 3.25. Purposely remember the result, and then perform the test again later, remembering, then processing, and then comparing results to memory.

Whether or not the "outside source" of information takes your memory and gives it back to you isn't the point, as it was still contributed by you, and wasn't there before you processed it. This does not prove that the outside source does not exist, but it should prove that you can at least contribute to your store of information, making it memory.

Shall I continue?

[Cthulhu]

I'll just drop it here:
http://www.viruscomix.com/page433.html

(I only recognize Dawkins, who are the other three?)

Ugh jeez, Subnormality.  Guy needs to just write essays or something.

Also, three cheers for more misplaced causal relationships.  None of those things would go away if religion were gone, they'd just find a new outlet.

[fqllve]

I'll just drop it here:
http://www.viruscomix.com/page433.html

Ugh jeez, Subnormality.  Guy needs to just write essays or something.

Also, three cheers for more misplaced causal relationships.  None of those things would go away if religion were gone, they'd just find a new outlet.

I think the stupidest part is the newspaper headline that reads "1 in 4 US Teen Girls has STDs" in panel 1 changes to "1 in 400" in the last panel.

Because yeah, religion cause teen promiscuity and STDs.