|
|
| Will you ask a question? |
| Yes. |
|
22% |
[ 5 ] |
| No. |
|
13% |
[ 3 ] |
| Perhaps. |
|
63% |
[ 14 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:16 am
Priestley zz1000zz Priestley zz1000zz You cannot know we are both the same. You may assume such is the case, but that is still just an assumption, a leap of faith. Not that this is even slightly relevant, but feel free to ask "the appropriate professionals." Make sure you ask them to explain the nature of human consciousness, and then have them provide proof it is the same for both of us, as well as every other human. I will promptly dismiss the entire exchange as irrelevant, as would anyone with the simplest knowledge of solipsism, but the responses you get should at least be amusing. I cannot tell how serious or sarcastic this comment may be, but it would seem we have at least reached an agreement.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:53 pm
zz1000zz Priestley zz1000zz Priestley zz1000zz You cannot know we are both the same. You may assume such is the case, but that is still just an assumption, a leap of faith. Not that this is even slightly relevant, but feel free to ask "the appropriate professionals." Make sure you ask them to explain the nature of human consciousness, and then have them provide proof it is the same for both of us, as well as every other human. I will promptly dismiss the entire exchange as irrelevant, as would anyone with the simplest knowledge of solipsism, but the responses you get should at least be amusing. I cannot tell how serious or sarcastic this comment may be, but it would seem we have at least reached an agreement.
I didn't expressly agree with you, I merely suggested the possibility that I could be such a zombie. Equally, you could be one; however, I am not of the solipsist school of thought and prefer not to reduce you to such a degree. There are other schools of thought aside from solipsism. I'm glad you've exercised your right to abandon the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:01 pm
Priestley It was a crack at solipsism-related humour, given my brief introduction to the subject.
I didn't expressly agree with you, I merely suggested the possibility that I could be such a zombie. Equally, you could be one; however, I am not of the solipsist school of thought and prefer not to reduce you to such a degree. There are other schools of thought aside from solipsism. I'm glad you've exercised your right to abandon the discussion. You do not "reduce" someone at all by admitting they could be a "zombie." No school of thought (legitimately) dismisses this possibility, and choosing not to subscribe to solipsism is largely immaterial. The basic concept of not being able to know another certainly heralds back to solipsism, but it is not restricted to solipsism. Incidentally, what makes you think I have "exercised [my] right to abandon the discussion"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:25 pm
zz1000zz Priestley It was a crack at solipsism-related humour, given my brief introduction to the subject.
I didn't expressly agree with you, I merely suggested the possibility that I could be such a zombie. Equally, you could be one; however, I am not of the solipsist school of thought and prefer not to reduce you to such a degree. There are other schools of thought aside from solipsism. I'm glad you've exercised your right to abandon the discussion. You do not "reduce" someone at all by admitting they could be a "zombie." No school of thought (legitimately) dismisses this possibility, and choosing not to subscribe to solipsism is largely immaterial. The basic concept of not being able to know another certainly heralds back to solipsism, but it is not restricted to solipsism. zz1000zz Incidentally, what makes you think I have "exercised [my] right to abandon the discussion"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:59 pm
Priestley zz1000zz Priestley It was a crack at solipsism-related humour, given my brief introduction to the subject.
I didn't expressly agree with you, I merely suggested the possibility that I could be such a zombie. Equally, you could be one; however, I am not of the solipsist school of thought and prefer not to reduce you to such a degree. There are other schools of thought aside from solipsism. I'm glad you've exercised your right to abandon the discussion. You do not "reduce" someone at all by admitting they could be a "zombie." No school of thought (legitimately) dismisses this possibility, and choosing not to subscribe to solipsism is largely immaterial. The basic concept of not being able to know another certainly heralds back to solipsism, but it is not restricted to solipsism. The part I made bold is a baseless assumption. It may or may not be true, but you can only accept it through faith. It may be "true," but it is still a leap of faith. On the issue of p-zombies, whether you consider that a "lesser state" is a matter of opinion. Personally I do not consider animals to be lesser than humans, but I understand why one might. The same is true of p-zombies. More importantly, I am not claiming people are p-zombies. If I did, it would make sense to say I was degrading people. Instead, I am saying I have no way of *knowing* you are not a p-zombie. I can choose to believe you are not, basing my beliefs upon a leap of faith. I can also choose to believe you are, also basing my belief upon a leap of faith. I could even take no position, believing neither, which would not require a leap of faith. None of those choices are "right" or "wrong," so long as one is willing to offer the necessary caveats when discussing their beliefs. The thing that baffles me is how many strong atheists do not even realize they rely upon faith as much as any religious person does for their beliefs. Priestly zz1000zz Incidentally, what makes you think I have "exercised [my] right to abandon the discussion"? If we have reached an agreement, then I would most likely stop posting. If things were not as they had seemed (no agreement had been reached) I would not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 4:42 am
zz1000zz Priestley zz1000zz Priestley It was a crack at solipsism-related humour, given my brief introduction to the subject.
I didn't expressly agree with you, I merely suggested the possibility that I could be such a zombie. Equally, you could be one; however, I am not of the solipsist school of thought and prefer not to reduce you to such a degree. There are other schools of thought aside from solipsism. I'm glad you've exercised your right to abandon the discussion. You do not "reduce" someone at all by admitting they could be a "zombie." No school of thought (legitimately) dismisses this possibility, and choosing not to subscribe to solipsism is largely immaterial. The basic concept of not being able to know another certainly heralds back to solipsism, but it is not restricted to solipsism. The part I made bold is a baseless assumption. It may or may not be true, but you can only accept it through faith. It may be "true," but it is still a leap of faith. zz1000zz On the issue of p-zombies, whether you consider that a "lesser state" is a matter of opinion. Personally I do not consider animals to be lesser than humans, but I understand why one might. The same is true of p-zombies. More importantly, I am not claiming people are p-zombies. If I did, it would make sense to say I was degrading people. Instead, I am saying I have no way of *knowing* you are not a p-zombie. I can choose to believe you are not, basing my beliefs upon a leap of faith. I can also choose to believe you are, also basing my belief upon a leap of faith. I could even take no position, believing neither, which would not require a leap of faith. zz1000zz None of those choices are "right" or "wrong," so long as one is willing to offer the necessary caveats when discussing their beliefs. The thing that baffles me is how many strong atheists do not even realize they rely upon faith as much as any religious person does for their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:03 pm
Priestley Ah, I understand. Can the same be said for any arguments/theories, since we cannot know anything with absolute certainty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence for said arguments/theories? Pretty much. At some point any argument or theory is based upon faith. Usually this is just accepted, as people tend to have faith in the same things for most conversations. It is only when different systems of faith start disagreeing that it really ever becomes an issue. Priestly Perhaps it is the case that, in abandoning the belief in the notion of God and/or any other deities, many strong athiests are under the illusion of having rejected faith in any/every sense and/or operating based solely on evidence. You have made clear that this cannot be true. By rejecting one form of faith they delude themselves into thinking they have rejected faith? That has pretty much been my assumption so far, but it is pretty bad if it is true. Either way, it would seem we have reached an agreement. Would that all conversations could end that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:08 pm
zz1000zz Priestley Ah, I understand. Can the same be said for any arguments/theories, since we cannot know anything with absolute certainty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence for said arguments/theories? Pretty much. At some point any argument or theory is based upon faith. Usually this is just accepted, as people tend to have faith in the same things for most conversations. It is only when different systems of faith start disagreeing that it really ever becomes an issue. Priestly Perhaps it is the case that, in abandoning the belief in the notion of God and/or any other deities, many strong athiests are under the illusion of having rejected faith in any/every sense and/or operating based solely on evidence. You have made clear that this cannot be true. By rejecting one form of faith they delude themselves into thinking they have rejected faith? That has pretty much been my assumption so far, but it is pretty bad if it is true. Either way, it would seem we have reached an agreement. Would that all conversations could end that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:05 pm
Fushigi na Butterfly zz1000zz Priestley Ah, I understand. Can the same be said for any arguments/theories, since we cannot know anything with absolute certainty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence for said arguments/theories? Pretty much. At some point any argument or theory is based upon faith. Usually this is just accepted, as people tend to have faith in the same things for most conversations. It is only when different systems of faith start disagreeing that it really ever becomes an issue. Priestly Perhaps it is the case that, in abandoning the belief in the notion of God and/or any other deities, many strong athiests are under the illusion of having rejected faith in any/every sense and/or operating based solely on evidence. You have made clear that this cannot be true. By rejecting one form of faith they delude themselves into thinking they have rejected faith? That has pretty much been my assumption so far, but it is pretty bad if it is true. Either way, it would seem we have reached an agreement. Would that all conversations could end that way. The belief in Consistency is a different matter of faith than I discussed, but it is certainly another example of the same issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:57 pm
You just made me feel totally smart. And I'm not sure why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:10 am
Fushigi na Butterfly You just made me feel totally smart. And I'm not sure why. A temporary high from my presence, perhaps?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:08 am
zz1000zz Fushigi na Butterfly You just made me feel totally smart. And I'm not sure why. A temporary high from my presence, perhaps?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 10:34 am
zz1000zz I suppose that was a bad time for me to take a break. It seems there was a bit of confusion about my post. My comment about a "leap of faith" is in regards to the belief the universe continues after one's own death. There is no basis for this belief, aside from faith. You can dismiss this as a form of solipsism if you wish, but it is remarkable how many "strong" atheists make this leap without realizing it. I am human. Every time a human has died, the universe has not ended. So unless I consider myself to be a special time-bomb for the universe, I have no reason to believe that the universe will end after I die. And even if it did, what difference would that make to me? I'm a weak atheist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 1:31 pm
Lethkhar zz1000zz I suppose that was a bad time for me to take a break. It seems there was a bit of confusion about my post. My comment about a "leap of faith" is in regards to the belief the universe continues after one's own death. There is no basis for this belief, aside from faith. You can dismiss this as a form of solipsism if you wish, but it is remarkable how many "strong" atheists make this leap without realizing it. I am human. Every time a human has died, the universe has not ended. So unless I consider myself to be a special time-bomb for the universe, I have no reason to believe that the universe will end after I die. And even if it did, what difference would that make to me? I'm a weak atheist. You just talked past the entire point. There was an entire discussion on why what you just said is wrong. Rather than repeat it, I will just ask you to read it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:56 am
zz1000zz Lethkhar zz1000zz I suppose that was a bad time for me to take a break. It seems there was a bit of confusion about my post. My comment about a "leap of faith" is in regards to the belief the universe continues after one's own death. There is no basis for this belief, aside from faith. You can dismiss this as a form of solipsism if you wish, but it is remarkable how many "strong" atheists make this leap without realizing it. I am human. Every time a human has died, the universe has not ended. So unless I consider myself to be a special time-bomb for the universe, I have no reason to believe that the universe will end after I die. And even if it did, what difference would that make to me? I'm a weak atheist. You just talked past the entire point. There was an entire discussion on why what you just said is wrong. Rather than repeat it, I will just ask you to read it. You're on here a lot, aren't you? I read your little summary of Descartes. But honestly, I didn't understand how you translated it to death. In fact, it gradually became less like Solipsism and more like a "How do you know it's NOT true?!?" argument. That said, the philosophy you were trying to implement is the only reason I remain a weak atheist instead of a strong atheist. You are right: I do not know with absolutely certainty that the universe will not end after I die, just like anything except that I think and I am. But that's the only leap of faith I take, and I take that same leap of faith with saying that this pudding I'm eating exists, and that I'm eating it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
