Philosophy Discussion Forums

Mind and Body, spirit and flesh, the material

• and the immaterial are not a paradox.
  You have to go back before the Big Bang to understand the existence of the immaterial when pure Heat energy was the only thing that existed.
  
  Before the Big Bang, The All was the only thing, that existed.

RJG wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2019, 7:52 am

Consul wrote:Solipsism is absurd!

It's "absurdity" (dislikableness) is not a valid reason to discount it possibility.

It's a mere logical possibility that doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

"As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician, this surprise surprised me. The fact that I cannot believe something does not prove that it is false, but it does prove that I am insincere and frivolous if I pretend to believe it. Cartesian doubt has value as a means of articulating our knowledge and showing what depends on what, but if carried too far it becomes a mere technical game in which philosophy loses seriousness. Whatever anybody, even I myself, may argue to the contrary, I shall continue to believe that I am not the whole universe, and in this every one will in fact agree with me, if I am right in my conviction that other people exist."

(Russell, Bertrand. Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. 1948. Reprint, Abingdon: Routledge, 2009. p. 161)

By the way, speaking precisely, there is a distinction between

1. ontological solipsism: I am the only (existing) object.

2. psychological solipsism: I am the only (existing) subject. (No other object has a mind or consciousness.)

(1 includes 2, but 2 doesn't include 1.)

3. epistemological solipsism: I cannot know whether other objects are subjects.

(3 includes neither 1 nor 2.)

What I call absurd are 1&2, but 3 concerns the epistemic problem of other minds that does deserve to be taken seriously.

Wayne92587 wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2019, 12:10 pm

Consul; Substance dualism is the view that there are both material substances (bodies) and immaterial ones (souls).

There is no such animal as substance Duality. The Soul, consciousness, has no substance, is immaterial.

That's why it's called an immaterial or spiritual substance!

As for "substance" as a technical term in metaphysics/ontology, see: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/

Consul wrote:Solipsism is absurd!

RJG wrote:It's "absurdity" (dislikableness) is not a valid reason to discount it possibility.

Consul wrote:It's a mere logical possibility that doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

The "doesn't deserve to be taken seriously" is an 'emotional' justification, not a 'rational' one.

Bertrand Russell (via Consul) wrote:"Whatever anybody, even I myself, may argue to the contrary, I shall continue to believe that I am not the whole universe…

As illustrated here, Russell's distaste/dislike of solipsism dictates his belief. He lets emotion, rather than logic, dictate his belief.

Bertrand Russell (via Consul) wrote:...and in this every one will in fact agree with me, if I am right in my conviction that other people exist."

Here, Russell commits the logical fallacy of "begging-the-question" so as to fallaciously justify an emotional belief. The "everyone will agree with me" pre-assumes the conclusion that "other people exist" (i.e. a non-solipsist condition).

Consul wrote:What I call absurd are 1&2, but 3 concerns the epistemic problem of other minds that does deserve to be taken seriously.

An appeal-to-absurdity (or -to-ugliness, or to-icky-ness, or -to-awful-ness) is logically fallacious reasoning. "Absurdity" has absolutely no place in logical reasoning. Its use is confined only to "name-calling" and irrationally justifying one's emotional beliefs.

Consul wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2019, 1:25 pm 3. epistemological solipsism: I cannot know whether other objects are subjects.

Can we really doubt whether those we are discussing with are subjects? Can you doubt that I am a subject? Language presupposes other subjects. I would call also this version of solipsism absurd. Like: "I cannot know whether this sentence exists." I know it exists, and because it exists, I have language at my disposal, and there is no use for language if I am alone. Do we need other proofs?

Tamminen wrote:Can we really doubt whether those we are discussing with are subjects? Can you doubt that I am a subject? Language presupposes other subjects. I would call also this version of solipsism absurd. Like: "I cannot know whether this sentence exists." I know it exists, and because it exists, I have language at my disposal, and there is no use for language if I am alone. Do we need other proofs?

Without language, then how could I talk to all of you, my zombie friends out there?

RJG wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2019, 5:05 pm

Tamminen wrote:Can we really doubt whether those we are discussing with are subjects? Can you doubt that I am a subject? Language presupposes other subjects. I would call also this version of solipsism absurd. Like: "I cannot know whether this sentence exists." I know it exists, and because it exists, I have language at my disposal, and there is no use for language if I am alone. Do we need other proofs?

Without language, then how could I talk to all of you, my zombie friends out there?

Singularity, the All, is not only ever present, an infinitely Finite indivisible Singularity, the All is also Omniscient.

The Uncaused Reality of First Cause


Quantum as an Ever-present Singularity, but also as an Omniscient State, Field, of Singularity having an unspoken Number, Quantity of Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singular Particles, Quantum, Primary Particles, having no Numerical, Value, having a numerical value of Zero-0.

Creation beginning as an Affect, as the result of the displacement and conversion, the metamorphosis, of a Singular, a Random Quantum Particle of Zero-0, without cause, intent, a Singularity of Zero-0 was reborn the Reality of First Cause, as an Affect, “the result of a bump in the Night, Darkness”, a Singularity of Zero-0 due to a change in the nature of Motion, the result of displacement attained angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction became measurable as to momentum and location within the All, became the first in a Series to attain relative, numerical, value of One-1

The Reality of First Cause, being a random Singularity, became the first Singularity, Quantum, Particle of Zero-0 to attained a Numerical value of One-1, resulting in the System of Chaos threw Quantum Entanglement, Spooky Action at a Distance, that has made manifest the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in the Material sense of the Word, Reality as seen in the Light of Day.

This thought is Unfinished ?

Tamminen wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2019, 4:38 pm

Consul wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2019, 1:25 pm 3. epistemological solipsism: I cannot know whether other objects are subjects.

Can we really doubt whether those we are discussing with are subjects? Can you doubt that I am a subject? Language presupposes other subjects. I would call also this version of solipsism absurd. Like: "I cannot know whether this sentence exists." I know it exists, and because it exists, I have language at my disposal, and there is no use for language if I am alone. Do we need other proofs?

It's like you haven't read much science fiction ! It is essential for discussing this type of philosophy. There are completely automatic machines which can easily convince the uncritical that there is a conscious subject at the other end.

I cannot know whether this sentence exists OBJECTIVELY - i.e. am I dreaming?

Chili wrote:I cannot know whether this sentence exists OBJECTIVELY - i.e. am I dreaming?

Maybe you are, or maybe I am just dreaming this response. Since we can't trust our perceptions to tell us our perceptions are true, we can't know if we are dreaming/hallucinating/whatever.

RJG wrote: ↑January 19th, 2019, 2:57 pm

Chili wrote:I cannot know whether this sentence exists OBJECTIVELY - i.e. am I dreaming?

Maybe you are, or maybe I am just dreaming this response. Since we can't trust our perceptions to tell us our perceptions are true, we can't know if we are dreaming/hallucinating/whatever.

Well it is certain that we whatever our perceptions tell us, it something, even if it is possibly delusional and in my opinion that's all we can know for sure, all the rest is abstraction, where pragmatic validity has greater force than truth.

Are you familiar with Mary's Room?

cavacava wrote:Are you familiar with Mary's Room?

Mary's Room is a non-sensical thought experiment. It's conclusion (of non-physicalism) does not logically follow from its premise (of experiencing a 'new' experience).

See https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 175621.htm where a robotic hand is conscious of itself and can teach itself new tricks.