Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test

From: 1Z <>
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 10:19:18 -0700

Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> >
> > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >> Brent meeker writes:
> >> > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >> > > John,
> >> > >
> >> > > Even a real solipsist might eat, sleep, talk to people etc., all
> >> under the impression that everything is a
> >> > > construction of his own mind. People willingly suspend disbelief in
> >> order to indulge in fiction or computer
> >> > > games, and a solipsist may believe that he is participating in the
> >> greatest and most perfect of games. I
> >> > > think that most real solipsists would eventually go mad and start
> to
> >> believe that the game is reality.
> >> >
> >> > And that would make a difference how?
> >> >
> >> > Brent Meeker
> >> It wouldn't make any difference: if solipsism were true, people would
> behave exactly as they do behave,
> >> most of them not giving the idea that there is no external world any
> consideration at all, the rest deciding
> >> that although it is a theoretical possibility, there is no practical
> purpose served by worrying about it.
> >
> > Their explanation, if they have any, as to why they behave
> > as they do would be peppered with "as ifs". Solipisism is
> > for people who prefer certainty to understanding.
> >
> Yay!.... someone 'got' my little dialogue!
> The point is that scientists are actually ALL tacit solipsists.

My point was that scientists *do* prefer understanding
to certainty, and therefore are *not* solipsists. I can't think of
anything I have said, or that you have said, that leads
to the conclusion that scientists ingenreal are solpsitsts.
(I'm still wiating for an example of an instrumetalist

> The only
> way a solipsist can exist is to outwardly agree with the massive
> confabulation they appear to inhabit whilst inwardly maintaining the only
> 'real truth'.

It isn't a real truth. if it were, it wouldn't matter
how they behave.

> There's no external reality...It's not real! being
> duplicitous is OK.
> But to go on being a tacit solipsist affirmed by inaction: not admitting
> consciouness itself of actually caused by equivalent to an
> inward belief of Bishop Berkeley-esque magical intervention on a massive
> scale without actually realising it. The whole delusion is maintained by a
> belief in an 'objective-view' that makes it seem like we're directly
> accessing an external world when we are not - it's all mediated by MIND,

What are "we", if we are neither mind nor world ?

> which we deny by not admitting it to be evidence of anything.... and
> around we go.... the whole picture is self consistent and inherently
> deluded and ultimately not honest. This is the state of science.... the
> last 2 paragraphs of the latest version of my little monologue are as
> follows:
> where:
> CASE (a) world: Virtual solipsist world. In this world I accept my mind as
> conclusive proof supporting continued fervent adherence to the belief in a
> magical fabricator.
> CASE (b) world: In this world I let a real external world be responsible
> for all phenomenal mirrors. Concsiousness is held as proof of a separately
> described underlying natural world, totally compatible with normally
> traditional empirical science of appearances _within_ consciousness.

Or we are just conscious OF things ,and they are NOT "within"

> ============================
> "If I am right to be a solipsist scientist I live in the universe of the
> magical fabricator, forced to play a pretend life 'as-if' there is a real
> external world with fictitious scientific colleagues, all doing the same
> thing. What is the reality of my life as a scientist telling me? I look
> around myself and what do I see universal evidence of? The world I
> actually live in is world (a). This evidence acts in support of my
> solipsism. No scientist anywhere has, for any reason other than
> accidentally, ever looked at systems producing worlds with scientists in
> them complete with minds inside it, built of it. The world I actually live
> in is the world of the 'as-if' ficticious objective view where scientist
> believe without justification that they are literally describing the
> natural world, and not how it appears to them. Indeed when someone tries
> to describe an underlying world they the scientific world snaps back,
> declares the attempt irrelevant, empirically unsupportable and therefore
> unscientific metaphysics....consistent with an implicit outward
> methodological denial of mind.
> But if I am wrong to be a solipsist, then the evidence paints a very odd
> picture of science. In this bizarre world, 'objective' scientists
> outwardly all act 'as-if' an external world exists yet scientists are
> actually virtual solipsists outwardly acting 'as-if' there is no such
> thing as mind whilst being totally reliant on their mind to do science and
> also unaware that is the case. And, like me, being in methodological
> denial of their own mind, are tacitly affirming belief in a magical
> fabricator through a cultural omission of paying due attention to
> reviewing their own scientific evidence system. Scientists in this world
> will go on forever correlating appearances within their denied phenomenal
> mirrors and never get to do science on phenomenal mirrors. Which one to
> choose? Perhaps I'll stay where the fictitious money is... in the land of
> the virtual magical fabricator...and keep quiet."
> ======================
> I'm done with yet another paper. This I have reached in
> depicting science I have reached from so many different perspectives now
> it's almost mundane... So many I don't know where to submit them any more!
> .....each different approach results in the same basic conclusion....
> science is structurally flawed and never questions itself - there's never
> any science done on science - since when did we earn the right to be one
> corner of the natural world immune from scientific method? Is this a club
> or a professional discipline? The current state of science - complete
> failure to solve the physics of phenomenal consciousness

Why should it have a phsyics ? Is there a physics of stock markets
Surely consicousness is a high-level phenomenon.

> - is a scientific
> prediction of the state of science with the current virtual-solipsistic
> belief stystem. - that is what science done on science tells you. We
> scientists are the evidence....(except me, of course... I dissent!!! Long
> and hard!!!)
> cheers
> colin hales

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Sun Sep 24 2006 - 13:20:16 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST