Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test

From: 1Z <>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:53:07 -0700

Colin Hales wrote:
> 1Z
> <snip>
> > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 3:19 AM
> > > >> > 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
> > ornithologist...)
> >
> I disagree and can show empirical proof that we scientists only THINK we are
> not being solipsistic.
> We ARE actually -methodologically- solipsistic because consciousness
> (phenomenal consciousness itself) = [seeing itself] is not accepted as
> evidence of anything. We only accept the 'contents' of phenomenal
> consciousness' = [that which is seen] as scientific evidence.

What's the difference?

> We think that
> predicting 'seeing'

What do you mean by seeing ?

> will come from the act of analysing that which is
> seen... this is logically fallacious. Like observing the behaviour of
> monalisa within the painting and then using that behaviour to divine canvas,
> paint and an artist: silly/illogical.
> This behaviour is 'as-if' we are solipsists - that we do not believe mind
> (other minds) exist. We are being inconsistent in an extremely fundamental
> way. This is a complex and subtle point - a cultural blind of enormous
> implication.
> As for an example of an instrumentalist ornithologists? Hmmm... perhaps ask
> the utilitarianist nominalist paleontologists. They may know! :-)

I have to say, I found your porrf to be pretty incomprehensible.

> >
> > > 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 ?
> Your words assume that mind is not part of/distinct from/intrinsically apart
> from the world. This is a linguistic trap.

So It *is* part of (etc) the world ?

> WE are inside a universe of stuff, WE are made of stuff with
> perceptions(appearances) of stuff constructed by stuff behaviour. When WE
> look as atoms WE are seeing stuff behave atomly. Other stuff in our heads
> paints atoms to look like that. Does that make sense?

Not really.

> There is no objective view in this. Only appearances. We are NOT directly
> accessing the external world. We never have and we never will.

How do you know ?

> > Why should it have a phsyics ? Is there a physics of stock markets
> > ?
> > Surely consicousness is a high-level phenomenon.
> >
> [A glass of water] is a high level phenomenon of [water atoms]
> [consciousness] is a high level phenomenon of [what?]

Neurons, presumably.

> You can't have a high level phenomenon of a collection of "something"
> without a "something". This belief is called 'magical emergentism'. In
> consciousness studies you can claim [what?] to be something seen with
> consciousness. The point is that the [what?] above will not be viewable with
> consciousness.
> That does not mean we can't be scientific about it. What it means is that
> the permission to examine potential [what?] is a behaviour currently
> prohibited by science because of the virtual solipsism I speak of. To speak
> of the [what?] is to speak of something that creates SEEING but is not SEEN
> directly. The correctly chosen [What?] will enable seeing that makes the
> seen look like it does, so 'seeing' is actually viable indirect evidence.

> If scientists are being virtual-solipsists by failing to accept seeing as
> evidence of something then seeing will never be explained. Do you 'see' how
> this blind works? Think of it like this:

> a) study New York traffic from Alpha-Centauri
> b) devise a very predictive 'LAW OF TRAFFIC'. It seems, when you make an
> observation (see) of something it travels at a certain speed. This becomes
> the 'LAW OF TRAFFICS' (we know it is mediated by local traffic regulations).
> This is a behaviour you can 'see' from alpha-centauri as an
> alpha-centaurian.
> c) Now use the LAW OF TRAFFICS as a definition/construction primitive of
> cars.
> This does not make sense.
> If CARS are what is used to see things (on alpha-centauri!) and you only
> accept direct observation as scientific evidence you'll never get to explore
> something that can be cars and therefore never get to explore seeing. What
> you have is 'speed limits'. You'll all talk with each other as if you live
> in a universe literally constructed of 'speed limits' (The LAW OF TRAFFICS)
> when it's actually made of cars.
> Generalise it and apply it to human? Take any law of physics. The universe
> is NOT made of a law of physics. It's made of something that behaves 'as-if'
> it does when we LOOK at it and devise a rule to predict it. This does not
> mean the universe is made of the rules we devise. None of the rules will
> explain LOOKing. The logic is the same.
> That is what I am talking about and that is the effect of science's 'as-if'
> solipsism. An underlying structure (eschewed as metaphysics) is responsible
> for 'Seeing'. Despite this amazing evidence provider being actually demanded
> by science to provide scientific evidence, the underlying structure is
> regarded as devoid of evidence. This happens when the underlying structure
> is more directly 'evidenced' by the act of acquiring scientific evidence
> than whatever it is supplying as 'that which is seen'.
> This is yet another version of the solipsism - acting as if MIND does not
> exist. I have been in and around this in so many ways.... it always comes
> out the same....
> 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 Wed Sep 27 2006 - 19:54:05 PDT

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