Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-03-2016, 05:44 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(27-03-2016 05:20 PM)Loom Wrote:  I'm not certain how you can live comfortably then.

I'm comfortable with the belief that I exist as a form of life, a human being, amongst other human beings (including you) that I have reason enough to believe can, for the most part, perceive things in a similar manner that I do, all of us living on a planet called Earth orbiting a star found within a cluster, within a galaxy.

Is this reality I find myself in an absolute certainty? Perhaps no, if I think about it too much. I could be a simulation, or a brain in a vat.

Yet, here I am, in this particular reality. And so I live in it as I find myself. Trying not to live as part of it doesn't change anything. I have no choice but to live in this reality until the (likely) ceasation of my life. After which, who know's what'll happen, but it'll probably be nothing. I'm not that special.

I am but a miniscule part of this reality, not reality itself. Which means, as far as I can tell, reality will continue without my existence. When I sleep, or am unconscious, reality is still there.

Possibility does not equate probability.

But the real question is, why am I wasting my time on this? There is no answer that will satisfy you.
I am against anyone trying to live as if reality does not truly exist. I have never said "reality does not exist"
I am against anyone saying that reality does not exist. I have never said "reality does not exist"
I am against me beleiving in something that cannot be proven by myself. Therefore the null hypothesis "reality exists outside my perception" is not something I should believe in.
I am not of the opinion that my beliefs are what motivates me to live comfortable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2016, 05:46 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(27-03-2016 05:44 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I am not of the opinion that my beliefs are what motivates me to live comfortable.

"Comfortably".

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2016, 06:01 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(27-03-2016 05:26 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(27-03-2016 05:17 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Is this a new speed record for landing in the Vipers Pit? Nicely done Shane.

Here's a simple experiment that you can do. Find a good solid brick wall and, using a 30 meter run-up, charge head first at it. Now while you're unconscious, either reality exists or it does not. If it does not then you don't exist and I'm a little hazy on who you think will be regaining consciousness with a patten of bricks stamped into his skull.
You honestly expect someone in an unconcsious state would be able to recognize that reality exists?

No. That is the point.

Quote:If ever I were to continue perceiving reality after such an event it means reality continued to exist after I was able to perceive it.

No, it means that reality continued to exist after you were UNable to pereive it.

Let me spell this out for you:

- If reality ceases to exist when you are rendered unconscious then you cease to exist.

- If you cease to exist then you will never regain consciousness.


Quote:Why should I care about a test that there is no possible situation where I can perform the test myself?

I'm certain you can find a suitably solid wall somewhere.

Quote:It cannot be tested and is therefore a null hypothesis.

That is not what a null hypothesis is. Kindly learn what the word means or stop using it.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
27-03-2016, 06:06 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(27-03-2016 05:26 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  No where in my statement do I suggest that we consciously create reality, but I realize many of you are tempted to think I somehow have this belief.
I am stating the obvious, not what I like.
Do not mistake the words "might not exist" for "does not exist". I have never made the claim reality does not exist outside of perception.

(26-03-2016 10:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Open challenge to the first person to accept my challenge:

Thought is more real than physical reality & reality may not exist without thoughts.

Kindly reconcile your statements.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
27-03-2016, 06:10 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
Apologies then. I was going off your opening post and your signature. I was trying to make a (bad) case for it. As Paleophyte has quoted, you are making a claim.

How are we to know that is not a claim you hold as belief? Especially considering your prior ramblings?

Even more, how is an unanswerable question a challenge?

Ignorance is not to be ignored.

Check out my DA gallery! http://oo-kiri-oo.deviantart.com/gallery/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Loom's post
27-03-2016, 06:54 PM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2016 07:42 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(27-03-2016 06:01 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(27-03-2016 05:26 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You honestly expect someone in an unconcsious state would be able to recognize that reality exists?

No. That is the point.

Quote:If ever I were to continue perceiving reality after such an event it means reality continued to exist after I was able to perceive it.

No, it means that reality continued to exist after you were UNable to pereive it.

Let me spell this out for you:

- If reality ceases to exist when you are rendered unconscious then you cease to exist.

- If you cease to exist then you will never regain consciousness.


Quote:Why should I care about a test that there is no possible situation where I can perform the test myself?

I'm certain you can find a suitably solid wall somewhere.

Quote:It cannot be tested and is therefore a null hypothesis.

That is not what a null hypothesis is. Kindly learn what the word means or stop using it.
Did I say that we create new reality when there are gaps in perception?
I don't need to come up with explanations as to why something is the way it is. It is what it is. The test does not seek to explain how this "thing" happens.
Explain what causes gravity to work. You can't but by logical necessity we know it happens. How it happens is still a bit of a mystery.
If you could believe in Gravity then you can believe that reality need not exist if we cannot perceive it.

My apologies for using the word "null hypothesis. I should have been using the word "non Falsifiable"
Thanks for the corrections.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2016, 07:06 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(27-03-2016 06:06 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(27-03-2016 05:26 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  No where in my statement do I suggest that we consciously create reality, but I realize many of you are tempted to think I somehow have this belief.
I am stating the obvious, not what I like.
Do not mistake the words "might not exist" for "does not exist". I have never made the claim reality does not exist outside of perception.

(26-03-2016 10:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Open challenge to the first person to accept my challenge:

Thought is more real than physical reality & reality may not exist without thoughts.

Kindly reconcile your statements.
??? Reconcile what?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2016, 07:36 PM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2016 07:41 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(27-03-2016 06:10 PM)Loom Wrote:  Apologies then. I was going off your opening post and your signature. I was trying to make a (bad) case for it. As Paleophyte has quoted, you are making a claim.

How are we to know that is not a claim you hold as belief? Especially considering your prior ramblings?

Even more, how is an unanswerable question a challenge?
You are right, it's not much of a challenge if it cannot be answered, but the point is one belief is more likely to be the case than the other when we examine the evidence.
The reason I made the post is because people constantly ridicule Solipsists for believing that nothing else but they themselves exists. This isn't the case.
This is the google definition of Solpsism:
the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
Please note the "can be known"
It is not the same as "is known"

I examined how I view reality and came to the realization that I used to believe in a lot of assumptions.
As a past Theist I accepted too many things without evidence.
The more I started to seek evidence the further from Theism I moved.
Eventually I renounced belief in any deity on the grounds that I have no evidence.
But my search for evidence didn't stop at God.
I looked at evidence for everything and eventually realized I put way too much trust in what people say to be the truth.
I raised the bar for evidence much higher than it was ever before and eventually stopped believing in absolute truths based on only the "references" people & media gave.
But I didn't stop there... This burning desire to seek evidence has forced me to question my own perception of the things I perceived.
I came to the realization that I can't even trust my own senses in all instances to provide me the truth about what I think I perceive.
It would appear proof is an illusion because there are seemingly infinite ways things can exist and the more i observe them the more I realize how little I know.
I am opposed to the reality that Solipsism seeks to imply but I cannot deny the logic behind it if I have no evidence to disprove it.
I took solace in the fact that I could be wrong and Solipsism could just be a fairy tail, but without proof I am lacking belief in anything.
My burning desire for proof took my Solipsist logic even further when I contemplated if I could prove my own existence.
I saw a documentary on the Portuguese manowar and what I saw completely changed my view on reality.
This creature isn't a creature.
It's a combination of multiple organisms that create the manowar. None can survive without the other and together they create a new organism.
Just when I thought I had evidence that at least I am sure to exist I am now wondering if I could be more than one entity with a combined intellect that together control this body similar to a manowar.
What makes me, me I cannot even define.
My first post here is "what am I?" because I wanted an objection to this logic.
No one has given me a good reason to remove the belief that I do not know anything for certain and the only way i have found for me to denounce this belief is to be dishonest with myself.
So longst as I have reason to doubt something I cannot honestly claim that I know for certain.
I probably hate myself more than others hate me for this belief but it is not within me to be dishonest to my own self.

I made this challenge because I want someone to show me the flaws in the logic and I'm making progress, but it's taking time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2016, 07:46 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(27-03-2016 06:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Did I say that we create new reality when their are gaps in perception?

No, you said:

Quote:reality may not exist without thoughts.

To which I have replied that if reality doesn't exist, neither does the thinker and thus there will never again be either reality or thought.

It's a form of argument called a Reduction to Absurdity. Not that it took much reducing in this case.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Paleophyte's post
27-03-2016, 07:53 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(27-03-2016 07:46 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(27-03-2016 06:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Did I say that we create new reality when their are gaps in perception?

No, you said:

Quote:reality may not exist without thoughts.

To which I have replied that if reality doesn't exist, neither does the thinker and thus there will never again be either reality or thought.

It's a form of argument called a Reduction to Absurdity. Not that it took much reducing in this case.
I agree with that logic to an extent but I made an objection to that in the "is belief in the unseen irational?" thread that explains why I can still exist even though the reality I perceive does not exist.
It would appear we have two minds & the second one does not seem to belong to this reality. If this mind is the true me then I need not cease to exist if this reality ceases to exist.
You drew a conclusion based on the assumption that our conscious mind belongs to this reality, but this is not necessarily the case.

This was the post I had made:

It's possible "I" am the product of 2 minds.
I may have a conscious rationalization (possibly a soul) which views the entire physical world as seperate.
The 2nd mind is that of subconscious rationalization, whereby the human body I sometimes "assume" I am in control of is an avatar for communication from my conscious mind while still being able to function on it's own by using the subconscious rationalization.

If the evidence points in a certain direction is it not logical to assume it might be more than mere coincidence?
This may be a bit more personal but it's the same question I asked myself that I am about to ask you:
How many times have you assumed you lost control of yourself when in a fit of rage?
How many times have you desired to do something but you ended up doing the opposite without being able to cognitively explain why?
How many times have you done something you think you desired but cannot rationalize why you did it?

The list is tremendous of how many times there are instances where I am of two minds about a particular decision, and what is even more astonishing is I have found studies that back up this hypothesis.

Premise 1:
Conscious Awareness and decision making are two seperate brain processes
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24394375

Premise 2:
Conscious rationalization is a product of conscious awareness because you cannot consciously rationalize something you are not consciously aware of.


Premise 3:
If decision making precedes conscious awareness then it proves that conscious rationalization is not necessary for a decision to be made.
http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/bra...you-decide

Premise 4:
There are proven instances where decision making precedes conscious awareness.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3746176/

Premise 5:
If free will does exist then we should have some form of scientific evidence to prove our self aware conscious mind is in control.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurosci..._free_will

Premise 6:
There are no proven instances where conscious awareness precedes subconscious awareness

Premise 7:
Conscious awareness is not necessary for survival but subconscious awareness is.
http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/awconlang.html

Conclusion: There is no evidence to believe conscious rationalization is in control of the decision making process.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: