Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-03-2016, 08:09 AM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 07:51 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 07:42 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  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

Literally everything ever perceived by anyone, ever.

Quote:and run it through the scientific method

You don't know what that means.

Quote:for us to establish a conclusion

The conclusion has long since been established.

Solipsism is a completely bankrupt position. It is incoherent on its face, and can only even be formulated if you discard not only the definitions of various basic terms, but the very concept of definitions altogether.

In other words, I am not at all surprised that you think it's worth more time than it takes to discard it.

It takes less than thirty seconds to establish the existence of an external reality, assuming that you possess a functioning brain.

You exist; this is self-evident.

You perceive something; this is also self-evident.

This something is external to you; this is a matter of definition, as what you perceive does not behave as though it is part of you and thus any definition of "is" or "external" which does not include it is worthless.

And so solipsism dies, as trivial, boring, and stupid as it ever was.

There is a reason no one takes this sort of idiocy seriously, Shane. It is closely related to why no one takes you seriously.

As a final note, I'm sure that there was quite a lot more silliness in the post I'm responding to, but I honestly don't care.

"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
[+] 7 users Like Unbeliever's post
28-03-2016, 09:08 AM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
Drinking Beverage

Well..... it's nice to see Solipsistic Shane is still being true to form even after all these pages.

Thanks for the interesting links EvolutionKills. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 09:10 AM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(27-03-2016 06:00 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(27-03-2016 05:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Congrats! You figured it out! You're a brain floating in a jar plugged into the Matrix. You have no way to test this or otherwise invalidate it, so you cannot prove it's false. I mean, how can you prove you're not a brain in a jar experiencing a simulated reality?

Now kindly fuck off.


For Everyone Else: See? He's a Philosophy 101 dropout. Mind. Fucking. Blown.
I'm. Other trying to prove any brains in jars or matrix. The topic title is clear.

We are discussing the reality vs thought timeline.
It'seems very testable.
It's the easiest test you can perform.
We can do it right now.

Let's perform a good test and examine the results.
The sample must have a timeline and a state for it to be a valid sample.
Take for example this cup Drinking Beverage
The sample timeline is 1 minute starting at any point in time after this sentence & it's state will be the state at the exact point in time where you started testing the timeline.
In 5 seconds... Go.
Drinking Beverage
1 minute
End Drinking Beverage

Ok good, we have our data. Let's review:
How did you start the test at the start of the 1 minute? The exact microsecond. Was it a thought that initiated the clock or was it the clock that initiated the thought? We started the process with a thought to look at the exact first microsecond of the first second, what came next in the process was a clock, followed by the recording of the Drinking Beverage until the minute was over.
I have repeated this test multiple times and the results were always the same. Thought comes before the reality in chronological order.

The question is "how do you know" reality exist before thought.
You can't possibly know without a thought, you can only guess.

Reality exists before thought. Null hypothesis
Thought exists before reality. Easily proven.

Since thoughts are emergent properties of brains and brains are physical, evolved things, no thought precedes matter.

Time for you to move on to grown-up philosophy. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
28-03-2016, 09:15 AM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2016 10:46 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 08:09 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 07:51 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I would gladly accept your claim (I honestly mean this) if you would provide the evidence

Literally everything ever perceived by anyone, ever.

Quote:and run it through the scientific method

You don't know what that means.

Quote:for us to establish a conclusion

The conclusion has long since been established.

Solipsism is a completely bankrupt position. It is incoherent on its face, and can only even be formulated if you discard not only the definitions of various basic terms, but the very concept of definitions altogether.

In other words, I am not at all surprised that you think it's worth more time than it takes to discard it.

It takes less than thirty seconds to establish the existence of an external reality, assuming that you possess a functioning brain.

You exist; this is self-evident.

You perceive something; this is also self-evident.

This something is external to you; this is a matter of definition, as what you perceive does not behave as though it is part of you and thus any definition of "is" or "external" which does not include it is worthless.

And so solipsism dies, as trivial, boring, and stupid as it ever was.

There is a reason no one takes this sort of idiocy seriously, Shane. It is closely related to why no one takes you seriously.

As a final note, I'm sure that there was quite a lot more silliness in the post I'm responding to, but I honestly don't care.
You honestly think I never contemplated that?
It seems either you are misinterpreting what I am claiming or I am not properly explaining what I am thinking.

"the belief in the self" is not a claim that reality belongs to the set of "the self".
It is a claim of the exact opposite: "the self" belongs to the set of "perception" which belongs to the set of "physical reality"
Picture 3 circles:
Reality = large circle
Perception = medium circle (fits in reality)
The self = smallest circle (fits in perception)

Is this not the same view you have? If yes then we are not arguing about that & you continuously misinterpret my statements.

This is what we are arguing about:
I am saying if we remove "the self" from the circle of perception "the self" can no longer "perceive" "reality".
Therefore "reality" does not exist to "the self" if we remove "perception".

When I say "reality does not exist without perception", this is not a claim from a position of empathy or anything outside "my self".
It simply means I cannot test for reality if I remove "perception" from "myself".
Here is an illustration:
A coma patient still exists in this reality right? If we found a way to communicate with their thoughts via electrical impulses how can they prove anything is as we say it is? They cannot see, smell, hear, touch or taste.

This is all I am saying:
"we cannot know what reality outside of perception looks like if we do not already know what reality outside of perception looks like"
It's the same thing as saying:
"we cannot know what the color blue looks like if we do not know what the color blue looks like"

People can describe to me a million ways for me to envision what the color blue looks like but without me ever seeing what it looks like I cannot possibly know what it looks like.

If this claim is not Solpsism then I am not a Solpsist.

Now all this seems totally useless at first glance but it is relevant to my next point of knowing where we lie in the general scheme of things. A question that continues to baffle scientists to date, due to our never ending quest to explain everything.

Thought is something I use to describe the essence of how we think.
I do not have any physical examples of a thought but I can still share a thought (an idea ) with you and if you can repeat that idea back to me it proves to me (& only me) I have the power to share my thoughts with something other than myself.

Thoughts are detectable, shareable, useable,
They have the power to create new reality (shapes, etc) and to interfere with inanimate things.

It is this very essence I seek to examine as a possible cause for the creation of everything we currently know.

That being said I do want anyone to go away with the idea that I am speaking about "our" thoughts.
If thoughts exist it need not be exclusive to human consciousness alone.
If the essence of thought is what creates reality then it stops the infinite paradox of creation.
In science when we recognize a force exists we do not deny it's existence, even though we cannot prove what it is.
We try to give said force a name.
When naming something never before named, we compare it to a list of known things to see which thing it most closely matches.

When attempting to describe what force can possibly create something from nothing the closest thing we have that matches that description is a thought.
The more I examine what a thought is, the more I see a connection to the those things in reality we are unable to understand.
If the essence of thought were a tangible thing it would have the power to create something from nothing and time need not be a pre-requisite.

I cannot tell how this concept "is" of any use to us presently, but if we do not rule it out and continue to probe in the direction of the hypothesis it may have some powerful uses.
Here are some of the seemingly things we may be able to accomplish if we were able to identify the essence of thought within our physical reality:
Transcend the limits of physical death
Telepathy
Telekinesis
Teleportation
Resurrection
Creation from nothing
Pain removal
No need to eat
And my personal favorite: Anythimg you can conceive.

Is it still not worth the "thought"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 10:32 AM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2016 12:17 PM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 03:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  1. Let's try to keep up with being honest shall we?
Can you not see the "if you want to"
It is not the same as "I want to" [...]

[yadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayada]

[...]If you can't keep up with deep thought try to stay out of the conversation.

[Image: bdmqn8.jpg]

The fact that you fancy yourself as a Deep Thinker is hilarious.

(28-03-2016 03:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  3. You're starting to sound like an eavesdropper constantly objecting to the parts he didn't hear and ending every misinterpreted objection with "dumbfuck" isn't going to fix the part where you missed half the conversation.

I do indeed skip your half of the conversation. That's because, generally speaking, you don't know your ass from third base about your subjects, and think that trolling consists of simply writing annoying things when there's so much more to it. You're artless, uneducated, and too proud to listen.

So yes, I drop in every so often to see exactly the depths of idiocy you're plumbing, and give you the occasional bon mot.

Dumbfuck.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
28-03-2016, 10:39 AM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 09:15 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You honestly think I never contemplated that?

Oh, I'm certain you think you've contemplated it.

Unfortunately, contemplation does not equal understanding.

(28-03-2016 09:15 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  "the belief in the self" is not a claim that reality belongs to the set of "the self".
It is a claim of the exact opposite: "the self" belongs to the set of "perception" which belongs to the set of "physical reality"
Picture 3 circles:
Reality = large circle
Perception = medium circle (fits in reality)
The self = smallest circle (fits in perception)

Is this not the same view you have? If yes then we are not arguing about that & you continuously misinterpret my statements.

This is what we are arguing about:
I am saying if we remove "the self" from the circle of perception "the self" can no longer "perceive" "reality".
Therefore "reality" does not exist to "the self" if we remove "perception".

Gibberish*.

(28-03-2016 09:15 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  When I say "reality does not exist without perception", this is not a claim from a position of empathy or anything outside "my self".
It simply means I cannot test for reality if I remove "perception" from "myself".

The observation that an entity incapable of perception is incapable of perceiving something is tautological, uninteresting, trite, and utterly unrelated to the idea of reality actually existing regardless of perception.

You have a pronounced and recurring issue with being unable to differentiate between unrelated topics that happen to employ similar terms.

*: As is the rest of your post, which I have snipped.

"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
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
28-03-2016, 10:55 AM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2016 11:14 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 10:32 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 03:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  1. Let's try to keep up with being honest shall we?
Can you not see the "if you want to"
It is not the same as "I want to" [...]

[yadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayada]

[...]If you can't keep up with deep thought try to stay out of the conversation.

[Image: bdmqn8.jpg]

The fact that you fancy yourself as a Deep Thinker is hilarious.

(28-03-2016 03:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  3. You're starting to sound like an eavesdropper constantly objecting to the parts he didn't hear and ending every misinterpreted objection with "dumbfuck" isn't going to fix the part where you missed half the conversation.

I do indeed skip your half of the conversation. That's because, generally speaking, you don't know your ass from third base about your subjects, and think that trolling consists of simply writing annoying things when there's so much more to it. You're artless, uneducated, and too proud to listen.

So yes, I dropping in every so often to see exactly the depths of idiocy you're plumbing, and give you the occasional bon mot.

Dumbfuck.

Consider hmm... He totally ignored the part where I asked if he could tell the difference between "is" & "can be" and jumped right into another unrelated point
... hmm... possible mental barrier to the definition... noted...
... possibly evasive... noted

Consider he thinks himself as having the ability to detect deep thinkers
... how does someone that cannot post more than a paragraph in response to an argument have the ability to detect deep thinkers
... need to study this behavior more... it'a very strange indeed... noted
... He admits to eavesdropping on only half the conversation and trying to respond to my posts without actually reading the posts... what form of sorcery is this Consider

Consider he brushes his teeth with an imaginary toothbrush... possible Solopsist with a personal hygiene obsession... noted
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 11:21 AM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 10:39 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 09:15 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You honestly think I never contemplated that?

Oh, I'm certain you think you've contemplated it.

Unfortunately, contemplation does not equal understanding.

(28-03-2016 09:15 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  "the belief in the self" is not a claim that reality belongs to the set of "the self".
It is a claim of the exact opposite: "the self" belongs to the set of "perception" which belongs to the set of "physical reality"
Picture 3 circles:
Reality = large circle
Perception = medium circle (fits in reality)
The self = smallest circle (fits in perception)

Is this not the same view you have? If yes then we are not arguing about that & you continuously misinterpret my statements.

This is what we are arguing about:
I am saying if we remove "the self" from the circle of perception "the self" can no longer "perceive" "reality".
Therefore "reality" does not exist to "the self" if we remove "perception".

Gibberish*.

(28-03-2016 09:15 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  When I say "reality does not exist without perception", this is not a claim from a position of empathy or anything outside "my self".
It simply means I cannot test for reality if I remove "perception" from "myself".

The observation that an entity incapable of perception is incapable of perceiving something is tautological, uninteresting, trite, and utterly unrelated to the idea of reality actually existing regardless of perception.

You have a pronounced and recurring issue with being unable to differentiate between unrelated topics that happen to employ similar terms.

*: As is the rest of your post, which I have snipped.

Consider hmm... He thinks the idea of a lack of perception is unrelated to a lack of perception... is this his perception?

Eureka:
His perception has a lack of perception... Therefore reality existed regardless of his perception... no wait there is something wrong with that... oh yea... he wouldn't know it so back to the drawing board
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 11:28 AM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 11:21 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Consider hmm... He thinks the idea of a lack of perception is unrelated to a lack of perception... is this his perception?

Eureka:
His perception has a lack of perception... Therefore reality existed regardless of his perception... no wait there is something wrong with that... oh yea... he wouldn't know it so back to the drawing board

And we're done here.

"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
28-03-2016, 12:08 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 02:47 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Why are you applying rules that apply to a physical reality to a reality that is said to not be bound by any of the rules such as that? Such a reality would not be bound by time. If you claim it can be destroyed it would have no meaning except as a moment that can be achieved by merely thinking about it. Simultaneously, before & after does not exist. It just is. Every moment is just as equal as another moment and all moments are possible while infinite due to the possibility we can add more to that which already exists.

Change requires time.
Thought requires change.
Minds require thought.

Your timeless reality is mindless.

Quote:Thought is the only thing necessary for such a reality to exist. Adding anything outside of thought to such a reality will collapse the reality.

What you describe is not reality. It is fantasy.

BTW, this is the very definition of Special Pleading and post hoc rationalization. When you start positting unreal realities it is an exceptionally good indicator that your philosophy has gone completely off the tracks.

---
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
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: