Quote:

. . . the satisfaction of every need of a living organism requires an act of processing by that organism, be it the need of air, of food or of knowledge.

No one would argue [at least, not yet] that since man's body has to process the food he eats, no objective rules of proper nutrition can ever be discovered - that "true nutrition" has to consist of absorbing some ineffable substance without the participation of a digestive system, but since man is incapable of "true feeding," nutrition is a subjective matter open to his whim, and it is merely a social convention that forbids him to eat poisonous mushrooms.

No one would argue that since nature does not tell man automatically what to eat - as it does not tell him automatically how to form concepts - he should abandon the illusion that there is a right or wrong way of eating [or he should revert to the safety of the time when he did not have to "trust" objective evidence, but could rely on dietary laws prescribed by a supernatural power]. . . .

No one would argue that man eats bread rather than stones purely as a matter of "convenience."

It is time to grant to man's consciousness the same cognitive respect one grants to his body - i.e., the same objectivity.

---

SkorpivoMusterion said:

Reality can exist without consciousness.

---

No, it can't.  Wipe out all consciousness... and the universe cannot be shown to exist.

Quote:

The party of existence, however, is independent of any faculty of perception. To say that the existence of Earth was nullified prior to any conscious life, or after any conscious life becomes extinct, is to deny the Primacy of Existence, the absoluteness of reality.

---

SkorpivoMusterion said:

Reality can exist without consciousness.

---

SkorpivoMusterion said:

To claim that because one is not present to recieve those sounds, that the sound is therefore non-existent, is a denial of cause and effect - another law of Nature.

---

SkorpivoMusterion said:

Because to claim that an action wouldn't create any reactions, is to deny the fact that every cause must have an effect - which, is an objective fact.

---

itstarssaddam said:

SkorpivoMusterion said:

Because to claim that an action wouldn't create any reactions, is to deny the fact that every cause must have an effect - which, is an objective fact.

---

Without any kind of conscious observer, how is there any way to verify that the action ever took place?

---

Sclorch said:

itstarssaddam said:

SkorpivoMusterion said:

Because to claim that an action wouldn't create any reactions, is to deny the fact that every cause must have an effect - which, is an objective fact.

---

Without any kind of conscious observer, how is there any way to verify that the action ever took place?

---

Faith in formulaic constants?

---

SkorpivoMusterion said:

By looking at the crime scene, so to speak.

If I walk in a forest, and see a fallen tree, then obviously the tree once stood - for a tree cannot fall if it never stood. Hence, it fell, and all natural effects followed from such a cause.

---

SkorpivoMusterion said:

In my opinion, there would be no way to confirm that the tree existed in that state prior to it's entrance into your perception, and your role as the observer.

In that state, as in "stood"? Certainly, we can confirm that it once stood - it has fallen. What more confirmation do you need? Something does not fall without having stood. Furthermore, an expert can check the remains of the tree stump, observe levels of decay and even determine the general time frame that the incident occured. One can even determine how many years the tree has stood by looking on the inside of the tree stump.

---

SkorpivoMusterion said:

Must every effect have a cause?

Until I am shown of an example whereby such laws do not apply, I will remained 100% convinced that every effect will naturally have a cause.

---

SkorpivoMusterion said:

In reality, however, the proverbial tree still stands, regardless. Molten lava still heats and boils underneath the Earth's crust. Stars remain during the day. Existence continues to exist.

---

SkorpivoMusterion said:

Existence continues to exist.

---

SkorpivoMusterion said:

The existence of consciousness; our faculty of perception, is a product of our body, i.e., brain. It most certainly has a cause.

---

SkorpivoMusterion said:

Existence exists; this is axiomatic, and irreducible. Do you agree or disagree?

---

Quote:

Once you bring out the Solipsism card, we can no longer have any discussion, as there is no point in debating with a Solipsist about such matters.

---

Quote:

Faith is belief in something that has zero evidence for it.

---

SkorpivoMusterion said:

its NOT a sound unless it is HEARD man. its just disturbed air.

Disturbed air? You mean sound waves? Well, gee, that's what I said.

Just like Reality would be nothing without someone to observe it.

Nothing relative to the perception of someone who isn't present, correct. In reality, however, the proverbial tree still stands, regardless. Molten lava still heats and boils underneath the Earth's crust. Stars remain during the day. Existence continues to exist.

Quote:

No man i do not mean a sound wave because a sound wave implies sounds and sounds must be HEARD to be sounds, i mean what I said disturbed air that may or may not be there. but most certainly NOT a sound


You assume your view of Reality is real, while I make my own assumtion that reality could be many things. You narrow your view into the realms of absolutes, yet you cannot prove these absolutes. Agreed things SEEM to operate that way but can you ever be sure? no. It is pure arrogence to assume otherwise. History should be a lesson to the assumptions of scientists. You assume the human race has an accurate view of the nature of things, but where is your proof of that? Science has its place, but when one starts to assume that the science of the day will hold fast forever they are in effect placing faith in an idea, jsut like a believer in God would. Im not saying you dont have that right to that, only that you should realize that it is not a sure thing. I believe in the Lord, but do I assume my views on him are hte word of God? no, neither should you believe that your understanding of the world through science is the true nature of things.

either is arrogance, and both are ignorance of the fact of our insignifigance to the big picture. peace

blaze2




P.S. also on an off topic note, i realize now that you are alot different from that fireworks cat, I apologize for including you in that other thread from a few days ago. I made the assumption that if fireworks counted you as on his side(you are of course on a intellectual level) then you would act like the child that he does. That was wrong of me. You are seem to enjoy the discussion of a topic, and not just the endless arguing.

SkorpivoMusterion said:

And does your field of perception not have any causal roots in Existence? Is there not something outside of your field of perception, that facilitates such perceptual cognition, e.g., a brain?

---

Quote:

I would say that anything which can't be directly confirmed through one's own perception would constitute faith.

I cannot confirm through my own direct perception, that I have kidneys - and if I were a Solipsist, then I would have to ignore the fact that I have witnessed kidneys being operated upon, on television - and the fact that they are shown in medical books, and the fact that there are various, established procedures and medical treatments that pertain to disorders of such organs, ignore everything I've heard about kidney transplants, ignore all the agonizing pain that I've witnessed people go through because of kidney stones, and so on and so forth, just to support the notion that I cannot be sure I have kidneys, merely because they don't fall within range of my own perception.

---

SkorpivoMusterion said:

So in the absence of mirrors and any reflections, you couldn't say for sure if you possessed a pair of ocular organs? What if somone comes up to you, and smacks a good ole' fist in your left eye? The effect: You have blurred vision. If you did not have any sort of organs which facilitate your perception, then you would remain unaffected by any such physical interaction.

---

Quote:

there must be an existence in order for you know that your field of perception exists.

---

Quote:

If you recognize that existence is consistent with itself, and that reality is lawful - and you still maintain your solipsist viewpoint, what keeps you from progressing beyond that point? Why not treat it as exploring a world in itself, and learn about how your [illusory] perceptual cognition is facilitated by [illusory] various organs, for instance?

---

I do.  Though at heart I subscribe to solipsism, I'm very interested in science and various philosophies, and I even maintain relationships with a few people.    Contemplating solipsism doesn't necessarily equate to isolating one's self and living in uncertainty; the truth is, whether or not there is an objective reality, we are stuck in our own singular field of perception, and this is the only vessel through which we can experience consciousness.

SkorpivoMusterion said:

Well, I was operating under the hypothetical scenario that you still have much of the knowledge of our ocular organs - and the fact that you see other people as well, with such faculties of sight. For argument's sake, lets go back to our brainy discussion so to speak, and say you got a concussion, and suffered some noticeable brain damage - clinically documented and established by medical professionals. Would you still doubt the existence of such an organ, merely because it does not fall within your range of perception?

---

Quote:

In order for you to be able to admit that your perception exists, there must be an existence for you to know this.

---

Quote:

As Rand points out, "A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness."

---

Phred said:

My suggestion is to ignore the Solipsists entirely. As you pointed out earlier, there is no point arguing with them as they believe your words are generated by themselves -- that they are arguing with themselves and not with a separate entity. I say if they are REALLY Solipsists, then let them provide their own imaginary debating opponents.

Of course, the ones on this board who proclaim themselves Solipsists are not in fact Solipsists -- their every action shouts otherwise. The very fact they engage in these discussions (and perform the rational actions necessary to keep themselves alive long enough to type on a keyboard) blows their protestations out of the water. The reason they give for behaving as non-Solipsists is that it pleases them to behave at all times as if they are non-Solipsists except when backed into a corner in a debate, where they then happily drop the "S" bomb and wander off "vindicated" by essentially proclaiming, "Not only can you not prove existence exists, you can't even prove YOU exist, you figment of my imagination, you!"

It's a waste of keystrokes to engage such posers.

---

Quote:

You know why the "S-bomb" is so effective in arguments, Phred? It's because it is a GLARING philosophical paradox.

---

Quote:

Sclorch said:
Assume that existence exists independently of yourself, essence takes a hit.
Assume nothing, fall down that solipsistic well.

---

MushmanTheManic said:

I?ve decided to notice the possibility of this, but behave as if it wasn?t a possibility at all.

I place my faith in empiricism. It only takes a very small leap of faith, and from then on, you're on solid ground.

---

Well said.