Print

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

[ChairmanPoo]

I get a deja vu every time one of these threads gets posted. They all start "Guess what? EVERYTHING IS A SIMULATION!" "Guess what, NONE OF YOU EXIST OUTSIDE OF MY IMAGINATION!", etc..

They all run similar courses.

By the way, that last example is coincidentally true as far as this forum is concerned, since we are all alt accounts of Pathos...

[Eagleon]

By the way, that last example is coincidentally true as far as this forum is concerned, since we are all alt accounts of Pathos...

Is there an archive or summary of that particular gem of Bay12 history? I remember pathos, but I think I was in my pocket dimensionDF when it happened.

[Sergarr]

It sounds convoluted, but that's the point. You can always have solipsism or something like it. You can always say there's another turtle.

By that metric, you can also always say that universe doesn't actually has any laws at all and all "laws" that we see are just random chaos that just happened to look like it's organized.

Both the "upgraded solipsism" and "laws are a coincidence of chaos" have one common trait - they're both incredibly convoluted, complex, predictively useless, and they get increasingly more convoluted, complex, and predictively useless with each moment that passes on.

That means that we can safely reject them both and be done with it.

Or we can enjoy them both and the stories they create.

I see a major problem with building rejection of any thought into our communication (and I say communication because the problem is much broader than just science) - namely, what if we're right, what if that thought is useful, edit:what if that thought is useful even if we're wrong, and what if that rejection creates a cognitive blind spot that removes our ability to recognize it once we have the resources? This 'useless' is as human a concept as any religious thought, and I think it's toxic to our capacity for both reason and creativity to ignore conflicting logic even when we are obviously capable of recognizing it. Mathematicians work with the mutually exclusive every day, hell, imaginary numbers, whose name was coined by Descartes ('I think therefore I am' Descartes) as scorn for being useless, have applications in circuit design. It's bizarre to have fear built into science when 'irrational' conclusions have already proven themselves to us as actually quite useful.

I'm 100% sure that a thought that results in an increasingly more convoluted, complex, and unpredictable world the more we gather information about it is objectively useless no matter how much information we do have.

Both of these also are unable to create meaningful stories. There's a reason why people hate Mary Sues in fanfiction.

Also I find you fears of rejection of useless thoughts somehow creating a blind spot in our cognition pretty funny. Guess what, if you can prove that they're useful, then science will use it. If you do not do that, then science will not.

And what "irrational conclusions" have been proven useful to ourselves? As far as I know "irrational" means "without reason" means outside science, right?

[LordBucket]

The idea of Solipsism is compatible with whatever universe you happen to find yourself in, so long as a concept like "yourself" makes
sense. Maybe in a post-individual telepathic world it will become out-dated, but it's valid as long as Cognito Ergo Sum is valid.

Telepathy doesn't particularly change the solipsist worldview. It simply either:

a) Means that the "I" that is observing, is perceiving an experience that can be interpreted as telepathic input, which no more definitely comes from an "outside other" than is, for example, a perceived experience that can be interpreted as being in control of a body in a physical world populated by other physical bodies.

b) Means that the "I" that is making the observation, observes an experience that can be interpreted as operating a number of physical bodies  rather than just one.

[Sergarr]

The idea of Solipsism is compatible with whatever universe you happen to find yourself in, so long as a concept like "yourself" makes
sense. Maybe in a post-individual telepathic world it will become out-dated, but it's valid as long as Cognito Ergo Sum is valid.

Telepathy doesn't particularly change the solipsist worldview. It simply either:

a) Means that the "I" that is observing, is perceiving an experience that can be interpreted as telepathic input, which no more definitely comes from an "outside other" than is, for example, a perceived experience that can be interpreted as being in control of a body in a physical world populated by other physical bodies.

b) Means that the "I" that is making the observation, observes an experience that can be interpreted as operating a number of physical bodies  rather than just one.

It does however makes solipsism look more and more like that "random chance coincidentally making things that look like laws" theory I've detailed above.

[LordBucket]

It does however makes solipsism look more and more like that "random chance coincidentally making things that look like laws" theory I've detailed above.

I'm not sure I follow you. I assume you're referring to this post:

By that metric, you can also always say that universe doesn't actually has any laws at all and all "laws" that we see are just random chaos that just happened to look like it's organized.

Both the "upgraded solipsism" and "laws are a coincidence of chaos" have one common trait - they're both incredibly convoluted, complex, predictively useless, and they get increasingly more convoluted, complex, and predictively useless with each moment that passes on.

That means that we can safely reject them both and be done with it.

That seems like mostly non-sequitor and a statement of personal aesthetic preference on your part. Solipsism is what one is left with if one refuses to make any unverifiable assumptions. What does chaos or randomness have to do with it?

[Sergarr]

Solipsism still assumes that your mind is something you can make verifiable assumptions about.

If one refuses to make unverifiable assumptions, you're left with "A=A" statement, not solipsism.

[LordBucket]

Solipsism still assumes that your mind is something you can make verifiable assumptions about.

Kind of need a definition of "mind" to respond to that. The statement could be interpreted a couple ways.

Observation is empirical. Experience...is.

If one refuses to make unverifiable assumptions, you're left with "A=A" statement

No, you're left with the experience. We can label that experience A, but the conclusion is that "A exists." Yes, you could then reason that A=A, but that's not particularly productive.

[Sergarr]

If one refuses to make unverifiable assumptions, you're left with "A=A" statement

No, you're left with the experience. We can label that experience A, but the conclusion is that "A exists." Yes, you could then reason that A=A, but that's not particularly productive.

Can't prove that experiences exist without assumptions, I'm afraid.

[LordBucket]

Can't prove that experiences exist without assumptions, I'm afraid.

I can't prove to you that experience exists, but I also can't prove that you exist.

I, however, am experiencing an experience. I am directly observing it. No assumptions are necessary for that.

[Sergarr]

Can't prove that experiences exist without assumptions, I'm afraid.

I can't prove to you that experience exists, but I also can't prove that you exist.

I, however, am experiencing an experience. I am directly observing it. No assumptions are necessary for that.

You do need assumptions for that. You need an assumption that you can experience an experience. Otherwise, how can you say that what you experience is actually an experience and not something completely different?

For instance, Plato believed that experiences were illusions and did not actually exist. What he believed to be real were pure ideas, without any empirical basis. So you have at least one philosophical theory where solipsism was directly impossible because it had different set of assumptions.

[SirQuiamus]

...as long as Cognito Ergo Sum is valid.

I, however, am experiencing an experience. I am directly observing it. No assumptions are necessary for that.

"Cogito ergo sum" is not necessarily true in any sense of the word. It could just as well be "cogitat" or "cogitamus," or even an impersonal "cogitans."

Perhaps we should just accept that there are no foundational a priori judgements, and we just have to live with that feeling of uncertainty. 

[LordBucket]

You do need assumptions for that. You need an assumption that you can experience an experience.

Why would I need to assume that? I'm experiencing an experience. There's no logical process required. Observation is occurring. I can't definitely know what is having that experience. For example, I don't know if I'm in a meat body observing a real external world, or a brain in a jar being fed stimuli by a computer, or a "soul" having a purely hallucinatory experience with no physical validity, or something else entirely. And I can't definitely know if the experience I'm having has any relevance to anything. Again, for example I could be a brain in a jar, with everything that I see and experience being fed to me by a computer.

But the experience itself...is being experienced. That I can know, because I'm experiencing it. In fact, it's all that I know.

Otherwise, how can you say that what you experience is actually an experience and not something completely different?

I'm not sure what you mean. What else could it be? I assume you're not trying to play semantic games. I am observing. The observation that I am experiencing, is my experience. I'm not assuming that that experience necessarily has exterior validity, or even that there is any "exterior." The experience itself is all that I know, because my experience that I'm having...is all that I'm experiencing.

What do you mean when you say my experience might not be an experience?

For instance, Plato believed that experiences were illusions and did not actually exist. What he believed to be real were pure ideas, without any empirical basis.

I think you might be using the word "empirical" incorrectly.

Empirical

"based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

I am observing an experience. It is by definition empirical. I could well be experiencing "illusions" with no external validity. But that would not change the fact that I'm experiencing them.

[Sergarr]

But how do you know that experience can be experienced, without any assumptions?

See, I am playing a semantic game here, because semantics are a part of those assumptions that you refuse to see as assumptions!

[LordBucket]

But how do you know that experience can be experienced, without any assumptions?

Because I am experiencing. No assumption is required.