Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-03-2016, 04:08 AM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 03:39 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You should facepalm yourself for still being stuck in a conversation about this reality only, when we have already moved on to a discussion about a truer reality which supercedes our own.


Unless you have evidence for such a thing, then all you have is mental masturbation.

Also, when we discover something that was once imperceptible (radiation, subatomic particles, etc.), it is not part of a "truer reality that supersedes our own", it is simply an expansion of what our current reality is. We haven't discovered additional realities, all we have ever done is expand our understanding of what our current reality encompasses.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
28-03-2016, 04:12 AM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2016 07:41 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 03:58 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 03:39 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What does that have to do with a reality that exists outside of my head?


Reality does exist outside of your head, and when there is a disconnect from what reality is and what you perceive it to be, that is by definition a hallucination.

So another faceplam for you.


(28-03-2016 03:39 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  We are discussing the possibility that this reality is subject to a reality that exists outside of my perception.


Newsflash: They are one and the same.

The vast majority of reality exists outside of your infinitesimal perception, and even that only applies to what we know (and can show with evidence) to be our current reality. There may very well be other planes of existence, or a multiverse, or some other layer to reality that we are not currently privy to. If our universe is but one in a multiverse, and we discovered evidence to support that fact, then the scope of our reality has simply expanded to encompass more. But until we have evidence to support their existence, then acting they they are there is premature, but likewise our inability to currently perceive them doesn't mean they don't exist. Radiation and quantum particles existed long before we had the means to measure, experiment, and understand them. Likewise your inability to perceive radiation (or carbon monoxide, and any number of other imperceptible lethal substances) wouldn't save you from exposure to lethal doses of it.



(28-03-2016 03:39 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  This means "everything" we perceive (as in everything) can be subject to a reality that exists outside perception. Hallucinations and the definition of hallucinations are not excluded from the word "everything"

'Hallucination' is a word we use to describe a specific phenomenon, and as a word, it is part of human language; itself a construct of human convenience. Words have meanings, and they can be created or changed, no alternate reality intervention required. So your objection is pointless, because our language is just as subject to our reality as we are. So could you kindly move past pedantic word games?

Also, be sure not to conflate possibility with probability.
Let's play this game then shall we?
Let's see how many times you will repeat the same statement without addressing the counter argument. I so look forward to this eternal loop if it means you will have nothing else to say.

Your point that:
"The vast majority of reality exists outside of your infinitesimal perception, and even that only applies to what we know (and can show with evidence) to be our current reality"
has been addressed on 4 seperate occasions before you wrote that, yet you still wrote it anyway.
Why do you do that: Not counter argue a counter argument, bypass it and then restate the original objection for the purpose of what?

There is no evidence to suggest that reality exists outside of perception because no one has ever been able to remove perception from reality in a single test. It is a logical necessity that perception has to be a part of the test.
If you object to this then state your objection. Instead you prefer to completely ignore the argument that supposedly countered that statement.
Address the counter argument if you wish to correct it.
Your method of debating is not how people usually do debates. If you aren't in the viper's pit to debate why are you here?

From now on every time you say something like you have evidence or you know that reality exists regardless of perception I am going to ask you "how do you know?" until you finally counter argue the point I just made.

Your explanation of the word hallucination is like trying to define infinity. I'm not allowed to say infinity + 1 because infinity already describes that right? What happens when someone is able to prove that 1 can be added to infinity? Does he have to rewrite the English language for him to explain himself? Now that's absurd.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 04:16 AM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 04:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 03:39 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You should facepalm yourself for still being stuck in a conversation about this reality only, when we have already moved on to a discussion about a truer reality which supercedes our own.


Unless you have evidence for such a thing, then all you have is mental masturbation.

Also, when we discover something that was once imperceptible (radiation, subatomic particles, etc.), it is not part of a "truer reality that supersedes our own", it is simply an expansion of what our current reality is. We haven't discovered additional realities, all we have ever done is expand our understanding of what our current reality encompasses.
So what?
In that case you are also guilty of mental masturbation.

There is no evidence to suggest that reality exists outside of perception because no one has ever been able to remove perception from reality in a single test. It is a logical necessity that perception has to be a part of the test.
If you object to this then state your objection. Instead you prefer to completely ignoring the argument that supposedly countered that statement.
Address the counter argument if you wish to correct it.
Your method of debating is not how people usually do debates. If you aren't in the viper's pit to debate why are you here?

From now on every time you say something like you have evidence or you know that reality exists regardless of perception I am going to ask you "how do you know?" until you finally counter argue the point I just made.

Why do you have an issue with mental fappery if you are also guilty of doing so yourself?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 04:24 AM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2016 08:21 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 04:01 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Based on the logic of the scientific method:
1. You don't need evidence to create a hypothesis. You need an observation. I observe thought has the power to create something from nothing (ideas). I observe that many things in reality (eg. Pain) does not exist until I perceive it.


Patently false. You brain is composed of matter and houses complex chemical reactions. All evidence we have indicates that consciousness (and thus, your imagination) is an emergent property of a living brain, and thus your consciousness is fueled by complex chemistry. Thus you do not have the power to create something out of nothing, as you are using up chemical energy to keep you brain alive in order to facilitate your consciousness and it's imagination. Your imagination costs chemical energy (Note for the slow: this is why you eat food). Thus, you are creating thoughts at the cost of something.

Come on newboy, this is Biology 101 now.


(28-03-2016 04:01 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  2. Your point that "all the evidence indicates that thought is bound by reality" has been addressed on 4 seperate occasions before you wrote that, yet you still wrote it anyway.


You spew so much nonsensical bullshit, you must forgive us if we cannot keep up with all of it.



(28-03-2016 04:01 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Why do you do that: Not counter argue a counter argument, bypass it and then restate the original objection for the purpose of what?


See above. Also, you've done this to quite a few people in this thread, because you too have a limited capability for keeping up with your own nonsensical bullshit. So there is that.



(28-03-2016 04:01 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There is no evidence to suggest that reality exists outside of perception because no one has ever been able to remove perception from reality in a single test. It is a logical necessity that perception has to be a part of the test.


Well, we can perceive that our reality exists; and to the best of our knowledge and evidence, it has existed before us and will exist long after. Granted we have to use perception to test this and gather the evidence to support this, but that is one of the baseline assumptions we have to use or else we have nowhere to go epistemologically. There is no reason to think we are brains in vats or simulations in a program, and we'd have no way to tell if that were in fact the reality we existed in.


This is why Solipsism is such a pointless fucking mind-wank, because it's almost utterly useless; it gets you nowhere, in and of itself it is an epistemological dead end.












(28-03-2016 04:01 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If you object to this then state your objection. Instead you prefer to wait 10 posts down to say "all the evidence indicates reality exists outside of perception" completely ignoring the argument that supposedly countered that statement.
Address the counter argument if you wish to correct it.
Your method of debating is not how people usually do debates. If you aren't in the viper's pit to debate why are you here?

I'm here to take the piss out of you and your bullshit. This is no more a formal 'debate' than a street corner hot-dog vendor is a steakhouse.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
28-03-2016, 04:34 AM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2016 04:43 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 04:16 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 04:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Unless you have evidence for such a thing, then all you have is mental masturbation.

Also, when we discover something that was once imperceptible (radiation, subatomic particles, etc.), it is not part of a "truer reality that supersedes our own", it is simply an expansion of what our current reality is. We haven't discovered additional realities, all we have ever done is expand our understanding of what our current reality encompasses.
So what?
In that case you are also guilty of mental masturbation.

There is no evidence to suggest that reality exists outside of perception because no one has ever been able to remove perception from reality in a single test. It is a logical necessity that perception has to be a part of the test.


You stupid cunt...

There has been plenty of examples of us discovering things that were initially imperceptible to us. These things existed outside of our range of perception. We could not taste, touch, smell, hear, nor see them; and yet we discovered that they do exist and are a part of our reality. We have evidence for subatomic particles and radiation, black holes and quarks. Reality is, quite clearly and demonstrably, not limited to our ability to initially perceive it.



(28-03-2016 04:16 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Why do you have an issue with mental fappery if you are also guilty of doing so yourself?


I only have a problem with it when people act like it is anything but mental masturbation. This is part of me taking the piss out of your bullshit, I'm treating your mental masturbation like it is mental masturbation and nothing more.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
28-03-2016, 06:08 AM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 03:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  We are discussing the possibility that this reality is subject to a reality that exists outside of my perception. This means "everything" we perceive (as in everything) can be subject to a reality that exists outside perception.

That's an interesting question.... for about 5 minutes when you first stumble across the idea. After that you typically see that it is an unfalsifiable proposal which means that there is absolutely no point in wasting another second thinking about it. The best we can do is continue to investigate the reality that we can perceive. Solipsistic philosophies are pointless dead ends.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
28-03-2016, 06:54 AM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2016 07:55 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 04:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 04:01 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Based on the logic of the scientific method:
1. You don't need evidence to create a hypothesis. You need an observation. I observe thought has the power to create something from nothing (ideas). I observe that many things in reality (eg. Pain) does not exist until I perceive it.


Patently false. You brain is composed of matter and houses complex chemical reactions. All evidence we have indicates that consciousness (and thus, your imagination) is an emergent property of a living brain, and thus your consciousness is fueled by complex chemistry. Thus you do not have the power to create something out of nothing, as you are using up chemical energy to keep you brain alive in order to facilitate your consciousness and it's imagination. You imagination costs chemical energy (Note for the slow: this is why you eat food). Thus, you are creating thoughts at the cost of something.

Come on newboy, this is Biology 101 now.


(28-03-2016 04:01 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  2. Your point that "all the evidence indicates that thought is bound by reality" has been addressed on 4 seperate occasions before you wrote that, yet you still wrote it anyway.


You spew so much nonsensical bullshit, you must forgive us if we cannot keep up with all of it.



(28-03-2016 04:01 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Why do you do that: Not counter argue a counter argument, bypass it and then restate the original objection for the purpose of what?


See above. Also, you've done this to quite a few people in this thread, because you too have a limited capability for keeping up with your own nonsensical bullshit. So there is that.



(28-03-2016 04:01 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There is no evidence to suggest that reality exists outside of perception because no one has ever been able to remove perception from reality in a single test. It is a logical necessity that perception has to be a part of the test.


Well, we can perceive that our reality exists; and to the best of our knowledge and evidence, it has existed before us and will exist long after. Granted we have to use perception to test this and gather the evidence to support this, but that is one of the baseline assumptions we have to use or else we have nowhere to go epistemologically. There is no reason to think we are brains in vats or simulations in a program, and we'd have no way to tell if that were in fact the reality we existed in.


This is why Solipsism is such a pointless fucking mind-wank, because it's utterly useless; it gets you nowhere, it is an epistemological dead end.












(28-03-2016 04:01 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If you object to this then state your objection. Instead you prefer to wait 10 posts down to say "all the evidence indicates reality exists outside of perception" completely ignoring the argument that supposedly countered that statement.
Address the counter argument if you wish to correct it.
Your method of debating is not how people usually do debates. If you aren't in the viper's pit to debate why are you here?

I'm here to take the piss out of you and your bullshit. This is no more a formal 'debate' than a street corner hot-dog vendor is a steakhouse.
To the best of your knowledge? What does that mean? This is not a counter argument rooted in the scientific method.
"to the best of your knowledge" is not based on any scientific evidence for the claim.
It is based on a belief system blinded by trust in things outside of your own perception

I keep asking you to present me the proof of your claim and your answer is "to the best of your knowledge"
If you provide me the proof you will immediately disprove the possibility.

Peer review belongs to the set of things that can fall outside of your perception & is therefore inadmissible as EVIDENCE in this case.
Peer review has it's uses but peer review isnt evidence nor is it something we do before gathering evidence.
Look at the chronology of "peer review" within the scientific method:
1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Prediction
4. Experimentation/Research < ----- evidence starts being gathered here
5. Observation/results/comparison of 'Before' and 'After'. <----- Peer review starts here
6. Conclusion

I asked you to provide me with evidence and you spoke about peer review.
I think you know what my next words are obviously going to be. "Where is the evidence?"

Anything that falls outside the set of perceivable evidence is inadmissible evidence when attempting to prove reality exists outside of perception.
There currently exists no known way (that I know of) to seperate reality from perception other than educated guesswork.
It has yet to be proven.
The inability to prove something exists does not prove or disprove it's existence. The possibility still remains.
If you are making a guess it would be nice of you to admit that "educated guesswork is still guesswork."
You are not willing to admit that even though you cannot provide any proof of your claim outside of a guess.

Your words sound like "I guess that my guess is true"
My words sound like "I guess that my guess is a guess"

All I'm saying is:
Respect the scientific method if you are going to flail it around as your flag ship against Theists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 07:08 AM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2016 07:16 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 06:08 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 03:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  We are discussing the possibility that this reality is subject to a reality that exists outside of my perception. This means "everything" we perceive (as in everything) can be subject to a reality that exists outside perception.

That's an interesting question.... for about 5 minutes when you first stumble across the idea. After that you typically see that it is an unfalsifiable proposal which means that there is absolutely no point in wasting another second thinking about it. The best we can do is continue to investigate the reality that we can perceive. Solipsistic philosophies are pointless dead ends.
Your logic seems flawed. You seem to think unproven claims = disproven
Scientists don't dismiss claims because they currently lack a method of testing it.
Claims are dismissed after they have been tested.
If a claim is untested it remains a hypothesis until further notice.

What is the logic in you recommending that I ignore a possibility?
You wish to save time? You have better things to do with your time? It would appear these statements applies to you & not me.
Are you a member of the self proclaimed "anti-time-wasting police of the world?"
I acknowledge your recommendation but I don't share your belief that "untested hypothesis" should not be thought about.

If there is no way to test "if reality exists outside of perception" or "if perception exists outside of reality" then why should either of them be believed in?
If your answer is that neither should be believed in until either claims have been proven then you share the same belief as I do & there is nothing more to argue about.
However this debate isn't about the skeptics vs the skeptics.
It's about the skeptics vs the believers.

So which side are you on?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 07:42 AM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 04:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There is no evidence to suggest that reality exists outside of perception

Save that literally everything ever perceived is consistent with an external reality, you mean.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
28-03-2016, 07:51 AM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2016 07:54 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 07:42 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 04:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There is no evidence to suggest that reality exists outside of perception

Save that literally everything ever perceived is consistent with an external reality, you mean.
I would gladly accept your claim (I honestly mean this) if you would provide the evidence and run it through the scientific method for us to establish a conclusion

To save you wasting time please note the following:

Peer review belongs to the set of things that can fall outside of your perception & is therefore inadmissible as EVIDENCE in this case.
Peer review has it's uses but peer review isnt evidence nor is it something we do before gathering evidence.
Look at the chronology of "peer review" within the scientific method:
1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Prediction
4. Experimentation/Research < ----- evidence starts being gathered here
5. Observation/results/comparison of 'Before' and 'After'. <----- Peer review starts here
6. Conclusion

If you are going to provide me with peer review as evidence, I think you know what my next words are obviously going to be. "Where is the evidence?"

Anything that falls outside the set of perceivable evidence is inadmissible evidence when attempting to prove reality exists outside of perception.
There currently exists no known way (that I know of) to seperate reality from perception other than educated guesswork.
It has yet to be proven.
The inability to prove something exists does not prove or disprove it's existence. The possibility still remains.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: