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.
> > > >
> > >
> > > COLIN HALES:
> > > 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!...so being
> > > duplicitous is OK.
> > >
> > > But to go on being a tacit solipsist affirmed by inaction: not admitting
> > > consciouness itself of actually caused by something...is 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 everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Wed Sep 27 2006 - 19:54:05 PDT