quote:

---

No...you don't seem to understadn what I am saying. YOUR usage of "exists"(in regards to "consciousness existing") is to MY usage of "exists"(as in "matter exists") as the word "rose"(a type of budding flower) is to "rose"(as in "He rose up to see what time it was".
Some people "believe" in Jesus. They believe he literally exists/existed and is the son of God.

Instances of consciousness do not exist anymore than instances of walking exist.

---

quote:

---

Well, yeah...but so what? MY experience of walking is different than the walking I observe others to do but does it matter? I can understand the mechanisms involved adn see that they walk just as I do.

---

quote:

---

I see where you are coming from...I just don't place the same importance on this as you do. TO ME this is, at best, an incidental consideration.

---

quote:

---

Okay, I getcha. I would agree that nothing can be "meaningful" without "observers" for which the term would apply. I have never doubted this. MY whole point was that matter would exist, even if this fact itself had no "meaning" do to lack of minds/observers to appreciate the existence.
May or may not seem an unimportant point from your perspective though.

---

quote:

---

Ah, see this I would disagree with but again, it's not something we can objectively resolve. To ME, this argument of yours indicates that if there is no one around to see the rock, then the rock vanishes in some *poof* of logic, which I whole-heartedly contend.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Therefore, a world with matter and no observers is identical to a world with no matter and no observers -- and therefore matter is dependent for its existence on conscious observation.

---

Nope. Not in my book. I cannot even see how you arrive at that conclusion?! It seems contradicted by every observance we make.

---

quote:

---

If your argument here had sense then we should expect that things which I, personally do not observe should cease existing for others as well and be unobservable.

---

quote:

---

My only beef here is that, it seems to me that you are simply rewording the assertion that "anything is possible" as "Nothing is impossible" and then making the argument above. To my mind you are making the same statement no matter how you reword it "God doesn't NOT exist" is not just an assumption that implies God's existence. It is an assertion that God exists!

---

quote:

---

I would agree that most are not consciouly and actively thinking about such things, but nonetheless they adopt axioms like the rest of us.

---

quote:

---

In any case, isn't this an ad numeri?

---

quote:

---

Even if I grant this it does not change the fact that the SCIENTIFIC portion of their hypothesizing/theorizing did not include their "blind hope", "dreaming" "wishing" and what not.

---

quote:

---

I would disagree even with this. In order to conclude that the universe was designed would take a WILLFUL disregard for the errors in thinking pointed out to the ID theorist. A dismissal of peer review and disregard for one's own logical fallacies in favor of a desired conclusion. That is not science!

---

quote:

---

Does it matter whether you use "walking" or "kicking"? Does it change my point at all?

---

quote:

---

I am only arguing that the action of thinking is NOT itself an existential thing, but an ACTION. ACTIONS do not exist in ANY sense without the thing that performs said action. There would be no "kicking" or "walking" without "legs". There would be no "thinking" without "brains".

---

quote:

---

Originally written by KernelKnowledge12:

Thuryl:
You say your a dualist, so I guess I can ask you this. I don't quite get dualism, but as I understand it, it applies to any philosophy that contains an idea in its purity, and its antithesis. Is this at all correct?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You're not really arguing that when we speak of consciousness existing, we're only speaking metaphorically, are you?[/qb]

---

Kind of...but not really. "exists"(as in "The earth exists." and "exists"(as in "Freedom exists." are two completely different words basically. You are using them interchangeably.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

(I'm assuming for the sake of argument that you hold some kind of functional definition of consciousness, even though it seems to me that such a definition can only be held if one deliberately misses the point of what we mean when we say we're conscious of something.)

---

What do you mean? Saying that my definitions are wrong because I am "missing the point" is a bit...vacuous, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So you're saying that the fact that you believe in matter has nothing to do with the fact that you believe you observe matter in the world around you?

---

I am saying that matter exists adn is not dependent on my observing it. To argue otherwise seems to be highly illogical...an attempt to reverse cause and effect so that thet baseball flying into the catcher's mitt causes the pitcher to throw it, type nonsense.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

(I'm closer to a phenomenalist than an idealist, by the way, since I regard thought, perception and consciousness as different subtypes of the same kind of thing. But that's probably of no interest to you.)

---

On the contrary, it is very interesting trying to see where other people are coming from. I thought phenomenalists were a sort of sub-type of idealist(like functionalists are to materialism?)? Am I wrong?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I haven't assumed that everything is possible. I merely haven't assumed that anything is impossible; that anything is possible follows from that.

---

So, in other words you assume anything is possible.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

There are, of course, delusional individuals who amass supposed evidence, some real, some hallucinatory, all pointing toward a conclusion which is false to any outside observer but which the individual regards as beyond doubt. You could argue, I suppose, that such individuals invariably have a defect in rationality as well as perception, but I'm not so sure.

---

I will include the caveat that, if I am delusional(and of course I would not be aware of it for purposes of this discussion), then I may still be 100% certain of these things but I would also be wrong. Doesn't change my poistion one iota though.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Above you said that the reason you can be certain of the correspondence of your observations to reality is that those observations consistently reinforce each other. Now you're saying that some observations stand on their own as being beyond doubt. Which is it?

---

No, no, no...remember those "necessary assumptions"? THose MUST be beyond doubt(even if YOURS is that "everything is doubtful"). We cannot, in any way ever get away from this. We simply have no choice in the matter. It matters not whether these necessary assumptions are rooted in observation themselves or not. They are STILL necessary.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

No I did not. I said the dream he claims to have had was unscientific in that it was not part of the scientific process/methodology by which he constructed a theory.

---

You listed "Observation" as the very first item on your laundry list of requirements for the scientific method. If an initial scientific observation is an essential element of the scientific method, then the lack of an adequate scientific observation would mean the method as a whole was unscientific. If it's not an essential element of the scientific method, it didn't belong on the list.

---

It IS essential! Again, can you point to ANY scientific discovery that was made in complete sensory deprivation?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Not necessarily. They could be performing a number of small tests within a limited scope, each scientific on its own, but the whole forming an incomplete picture of the world that seems to support creationism -- following the letter of the scientific method while skirting around the spirit of it.

---

But as soon as they abandon the method...that is the very INSTANT they try to force their little individually correct tests into a wholly unscientific hypothesis, they are not doing science.

For example:

I hypothesize that the sun emits ultraviolet light-energy(correct).

I hypothesize that these ultraviolet rays can be harmful to my skin(correct).

I then propose the theory that Apollo hates humanity adn is trying to slowly cook us using the sun(incorrect and unscientific)!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

(I have to say, though, your definitions seem a little circular. A "brain" is an object capable of thinking, and "thinking" is what a brain does?)

---

YEah but what can you do...? "Legs" are appendages which enaable "walking" and "walking" is what legged things do. Same diff'.

---

quote:

---

Btw, I do not argue that conciousness is "more certain" or "NOT more certain" to exist. I argue that it deos NOT exist AT ALL in the way that matter exists. Two completely different useages of the word "exists".

"I am going to make a killing scalping Super Bowl tickets!"

"I am killing people for their Super Bowl Tickets."

Which is the above is the more prolific murderer? The answer is the second one because teh first one has not murdered anyone.
That is what it is like to try and argue that we are more certain of conciousness' existence than matter's.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I have to wonder what your method of empirical proof is; obviously, not all of your perceptions can be completely relied upon as accurate all the time, so how do you tell which ones you can consider absolutely without a shadow of a doubt 100% reliable and which ones you can't?

---

First of all, as far as my "method of empirical proof" is concerned, I do not seek empirical proof for or against things which do not empirically exist.

---

quote:

---

Therefore, matter exists and this is a certainty. End of debate on that one. For me to challenge YOUR idealism, I would have to grant your premises/axioms adn find a way, within that idealism paradigm, to show it to be somehow incorrect which is impossible to do.

Therefore I do not go around mixing it up with idealists and solipsists.

Same goes for YOU on the subject of materialism. Matter exists and is the primary stuff of the universe. Conciousness, walking, jumping, flying etc. are activities & functions emergent from matter and material processes. That is my, beyond question, necessary assumption. Yours is different. Neither of us are going to "prove" or "disprove" the other's first principles.

---

quote:

---

Now, having said all that(again), who do I know that some things are 100% certain with my not-totally-reliable perceptions?

Again, by MY "neceesary assumptions", logic, as in "reasoned thinking" is a certainty. Things do not get closer to you while they move away from you. Things cannot be "Not round" and "round" at the same time. This is 100% consistent with everything both YOU and I observe in the universe. Just that YOU question reason itself, but not by reasoned argument. It is just YOUR "necessary assumption"/axioms that anything be possible, no matter how inconsistent and ridiculous by my standards.

---

quote:

---

Now, given that I accept that everything I observe is real and exists just as I observe it to. Doesn't mean I don't mispercieve or misunderstand.

---

quote:

---

Correct perceptions can be repeatedly tested and verified to be correct and incorrect perceptions/assessment, likewise.

---

quote:

---

Incorrect observations/understandings will not repeatedly and consistently reveal themselves to be correct and correct observations/understandings will not repeatedly and consistently reveal themselves as incorrect.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you form certainty by the aggregation of many observations which are individually subject to doubt, then keep in mind that by taking two observations that are each 99% certain, you're still only 99.99% certain, and so on. Can't get to 100% that way.

---

But some observations are absolutely NOT in doubt to any degree.

---

quote:

---

I know you disagree with this but as I said before, we will just have to disagree because this goes back to the whole "first principles" thing. You go ahead and doubt every observation you make but keep in mind the following: "Nothing is certain" is also a an assertion and following YOUR reasoning, you cannot say this is true.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Not that I'm suggesting we throw away arithmetic in general, of course, but it does make the point that the validity of systems like logic and arithmetic depends on the objects you apply it to. The axioms of logic and arithmetic are tools people have invented for making sense of their perceptions, not objects existing in some world of Platonic ideal forms.

---

Fasle dichotomy. The axioms of logic(not talking about math-specific stuff here, just reasoned thinking) are NEITHER human "inventions", nor material objects. They are more akin to discoveries about how the universe behaves.

---

quote:

---

No I did not. I said the dream he claims to ahve had was unscientific in that it was not part of the scientific process/methodology by which he constructed a theory.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If the discovery was scientifically unsound, surely it follows that other scientists were therefore wrong to rely on his work on its structure for other purposes.

---

The discovery WAS scientifically sound. The dream that inspired him could NEVER be.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'd argue that as long as creation scientists test their hypotheses adequately and without bias, what they're doing counts as science. (Of course, if they do that, they're not likely to stay creationists for very long.)

---

EXATLY!! Ergo, if they ARE still creationsits, they cannot be doing science(in this regard)!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

What it shows is that there are situations where logic isn't useful.

---

Granted. I never rely on logic to tell me who will win the lottery or what a free willed individual will do in circumstance 'X'. But so what?

---

quote:

---

Oh no you don't. I can't prove that Santa Claus does not exist and I cannot prove that your unbrained thinker does not exist. THat these things do not exist and this is certain simply follows from my materialism.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

(Unless you use a very broad definition of "brain", such as "an object capable of conducting thought processes", in which case I'll concede the point at least for all practical purposes.)

---

Yeah, I never said it had to be a HUMAN brain... ;)

---

quote:

---

See this is where those axioms/first principles come in. YOURS is a solipsist one or at least a "Solipsism might be possible" one. Mine is a materialist one. BOTH are assumptions(what I and most philosophers would call "necessary assumptions" or "useful assumptions").

---

quote:

---

You are still not getting the whole "first principles" thing. YOU are choosing the axiom that "We cannot be sure of anything". I am choosing the axiom "We CAN be sure of some things."

---

quote:

---

It IS ruled out by MY axioms! Logically, there is no way around this. First principles/necessary assumptions cannot be challenged by the methods and processes that emerge from those principles.
To argue otherwise is like trying to use math to prove that math works! If someone does not believe you can actually quantify things sequentially through addition, subtraction and multiplication then using addition, subtraction and multiplication to show them otherwise is nonsense!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

But what does it actually mean to say the rock existed before you were thinking about it?

---

It means that before I was thinking about the rock, someone else was observing me walking toward it with my head in a book and subsequently stubbing my toe on said rock. Even without this bit of concurrent observatrion, the rock is existent as evidenced by my toe-stubbing even though I was not thinking about the rock.

I honestly don't think we are going to get past this one as you seem to, for whatever reasons, place the thought of such things on a higher pedestal than the things themselves. Roaches have no abstract thoughts and cannot even concieve of "rocks" and yet they navigate around them as well. Automobiles have no thoughts at all and yet if one hits a rock, damage will occur(even with no humans around at the time).

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Which was exactly my point - it's possible for a scientific discovery to occur without any initial observation taking place at all.

---

?!?!?!?

How so?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Once you have a hypothesis, it doesn't matter how you got that hypothesis.

---

Sure it does! The "Creationist hypothesis"(for example) is NOT science! We are talking about SCIENCE here! Scientific hypotheses require observation!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

When is presupposition a trap and when is it the formation of assumptions or axioms necessary for a coherent and meaningful view of the world?

---

Presupposition is ALWAYS a trap. Necessary assumptions/first principles are unavoidable, so tieing your brain up in circular knots worrying about them is useless.

---

quote:

---

It seems silly to me that humans put so much credence on the fact that we can construct nonsense statements and paradoxes!? As if this fact alone refuted logic!

---

quote:

---

And I disagree and we are not going to get any further with that one either. TO me, defining thinking in any way that does not include the brain is meaningless. You might as well define thinking as "The smell of purple".

---

quote:

---

From YOUR "assumptions"/axioms maybe. Not mine. From MY materialist POV, the fact that you cannot think without your brain proves that you need your brain to think.

---

quote:

---

As soon as you show me a thought that exists sans a brain, we will have something new to discuss on this matter.

---

quote:

---

It cannot be true. If it were true then we would know nothing. SInce we know things and the universe operates in a consistent manner, we do not live in the "anything is possible" universe. If we DID live in the "AiP" universe then it would be possible that we know EVERYTHING(with 100% certainty)! Your argument refutes itself!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Surely, then, if you produce a sufficiently accurate duplicate of a human at a certain point in time, the original and the duplicate will be identical in all ways, including self-awareness, regardless of the fact that one has actually experienced things and the other merely has the neurological remnants of its prototype's experiences. Or are you arguing that self-awareness isn't a state function?

---

I think Gould's contingency theory would apply here. There are simply too zoggin' many variables to account for and no matter how hard you try, you can never really duplicate them all to replicate the developement of humanity.

---