No. I think it does.
[/quote]
I am going with the OP, not with everything that follows it, so I may have missed something.
A thing that is unperceivable can’t be proven to exist. That’s not the same as unperceived. Otherwise, what standards are you applying to proof? Testimony is enough for most people.
People I trust have been to Tokyo, it’s mentioned in many books and films, I’ve spoken to people who claim to work there and there are people selling plane tickets should I wish to go; that’s proof enough for me that Tokyo exists, even though I’ve never directly perceived it and have no access right now to anyone who’s perceiving it. There’s no reason to assume the back of the moon only came into existence the moment we sent cameras/spacemen/perceivers around there - its existence and nature were precisely what we went there to see.
The argument above effectively says that you only believe that which you are currently perceiving. Which I don’t believe for a minute, and if it’s true, I probably wouldn’t consider you someone worth learning philosophy from.
But if we’re talking unperceivable, I’d agree… a nothing will do as well as a something about which nothing can be said.
You fell at the first post. The rest is therefore meaningless nonsense.
We know that in many instances (A) is incorrect, as things that were hitherto unknown, became know to us, such as the planet Neptune.
Further there is much in the Universe that is speculated to exist, cannot be proven, but may well subsequently be proven to exist.
Following your false syllogism, would entail that such things as the planet Neptune, Uranus, and the satellite Pluto did not actaully exist until the moment that they were proven to exist: that is absurd.
Do you really think that things come into existence the moment they are perceived?
Oh look under that rock I want to create a few bugs.
This demonstrates that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing; or kids that play with logic need to get real.
I agree. I still maintain (B) is true, however. It’s contrapositive is (Contrapositive of (B)) if a thing can be proven to exist, then it’s perceived. The contrapositive seems to be true. If I can prove something exists, then the proof itself gives me my perception of the thing. Since the contrapositive of (B) is true and logically equivalent to (B) itself, (B) is also true.
From one standpoint, any truth materially implies any truth. If a thing exists, the truth “The thing exists” can be used as the conclusion in any argument with only true premises and the argument will be materially valid. So (A) is true at least in the fundamental material sense.
I maintain (A) is also true the stronger, conventional sense. A fundamental assumption of science seems to be that everything can be explained and that everything has a cause. So, everything that exists can be explained through its causes in a valid proof of the thing’s existence. Thus, everything that exists can be proven to exist. So (A) is true in the stronger, conventional sense.
Browser, consider this. You see an oar half submerged in the water, creating the optical illusion that it is bent. According to you, it is bent, because that is how you perceive it. But when you reach into the water and feel that the oar is in fact straight, you have to say that there are two oars… one bent and one straight. One that you see and one that you feel.
This is the only conclusion you can come to, because if the oar appears bent, it must be bent, and yet if it feels straight, it must be straight. Do you mean to say that there are two oars here, or will you admit that you are seeing an optical illusion?
Moreover, two different people seeing this oar must in fact be seeing two different oars, since there is no single, ‘real’ oar in the water for their perceptions to converge on.
Completely wrong.
There is nothing of any merit here whatever.
The Universe does not recognise your concept of thingness. Let us imagine that on the darkside of the moon there are many rocks. Whilst we know there are many, we cannot prove the existence of a single one. Even if we were to land on the moon, beneath our feet would be trillions of atoms of various kinds, and whilst we might know they are present we could never count them all, yet each of them is a thing.
You are nothing but a flea on the arse of an elephant thinking that the Universe consists of an anus, yet never knowing the elephant or tha fact that he has eyes.
Perhaps you could explain precisely what’s wrong there.
In actuality, Browser is right. Everything he has positioned in his first OP is truthful and can be proven, and thus is of great worth.
I guess all those years of shipping people upside the head saying there are no truths or logical fallacies have gone to waste.
Suspend your analytic presumptions that cause you to resist so heavily against the Ops’ cultural phenomena as a Solipsist (one who in our tradition in the west is easy prey) and consider for a moment why this exists in the first place:
There are multiple ways to sense the world, and we are NEVER able to sense all at once, as our conscious threshold simply isn’t that wide… PTSD from battlehood sensory trauma would be non existent if we were this elastic in the girth of our being.
We choose and select, and there is variety per personality type and psychological disorder.
Take the Chinese girl in the picture, and give your Solipist-Visual arguments to her. She is clearly relying a bit more on her somatosensory system than her vestibular or visual systems and vestibular systems. She is breaking some serious scientific assumptions she gathered from her secular education. Maybe see is pondering that philosophical tradition rooted on Psuedo-Longinius’ work “On The Sublime?”
If you have cereal before you, and you scoop up your Fruit Loops, and stick it in your mouth, does the invisible spoon in your mouth still exist? Most say yes, some say no, and fMRIs can show they are telling the truth. And yes, they are quite aware of the paradox. It literally doesn’t make SENSE to them.
Why? Are try logically incorrect at any given point? No… every aspect of processing works validly, the same in them as anyone else. Its their adaptability to learn to switch to other valid modes of the mind, sometimes the mode is corrupted, other times they just never learned to use it, like how people who can’t see depth perception can sometimes learn to see it once the sit through a 3-D Movie with “trainer glasses” on.
I want you all to be very careful, go back, and carefully review that OP. Is there anything actually wrong? Could a sane and healthily function thought process be completed using the steps provided?
Notice everyone was refuting his reliance on concrete objects by causally introprolating abstractions that rest on complex cognitive functions themselves.
Can we really accept someone else’s word?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds
Does Empiricism always lead to the same conclusions?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
How do Dissociative Disorders, in particular, depersonalization, effect both the assertions for and against Solipsism (including the counters argument against Berkeley’s God, wouldn’t this skepticism merely be evidence of a psychological disorder on the part of the doubter? (as catholic as I am, I hardly accept Berkeley’s position, but hardly can I accept the assinine method its historically been refuted, as it is more wrong).
Okay everyone… drop your acts and let’s try this again. Unless your a lying filthy Canadian that is.
In actuality, Browser is right. Everything he has positioned in his first OP is truthful and can be proven, and thus is of great worth.
I guess all those years of shipping people upside the head saying there are no truths or logical fallacies have gone to waste.
Suspend your analytic presumptions that cause you to resist so heavily against the Ops’ cultural phenomena as a Solipsist (one who in our tradition in the west is easy prey) and consider for a moment why this exists in the first place:
There are multiple ways to sense the world, and we are NEVER able to sense all at once, as our conscious threshold simply isn’t that wide… PTSD from battlehood sensory trauma would be non existent if we were this elastic in the girth of our being.
We choose and select, and there is variety per personality type and psychological disorder.
Take the Chinese girl in the picture, and give your Solipist-Visual arguments to her. She is clearly relying a bit more on her somatosensory system than her vestibular or visual systems and vestibular systems. She is breaking some serious scientific assumptions she gathered from her secular education. Maybe see is pondering that philosophical tradition rooted on Psuedo-Longinius’ work “On The Sublime?”
If you have cereal before you, and you scoop up your Fruit Loops, and stick it in your mouth, does the invisible spoon in your mouth still exist? Most say yes, some say no, and fMRIs can show they are telling the truth. And yes, they are quite aware of the paradox. It literally doesn’t make SENSE to them.
Why? Are try logically incorrect at any given point? No… every aspect of processing works validly, the same in them as anyone else. Its their adaptability to learn to switch to other valid modes of the mind, sometimes the mode is corrupted, other times they just never learned to use it, like how people who can’t see depth perception can sometimes learn to see it once the sit through a 3-D Movie with “trainer glasses” on.
I want you all to be very careful, go back, and carefully review that OP. Is there anything actually wrong? Could a sane and healthily function thought process be completed using the steps provided?
Notice everyone was refuting his reliance on concrete objects by causally introprolating abstractions that rest on complex cognitive functions themselves.
Can we really accept someone else’s word?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds
Does Empiricism always lead to the same conclusions?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
How do Dissociative Disorders, in particular, depersonalization, effect both the assertions for and against Solipsism (including the counters argument against Berkeley’s God, wouldn’t this skepticism merely be evidence of a psychological disorder on the part of the doubter? (as catholic as I am, I hardly accept Berkeley’s position, but hardly can I accept the assinine method its historically been refuted, as it is more wrong).
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deperso … n_disorder
Okay everyone… drop your acts and let’s try this again. Your right in your assertions, but also retardedly wrong.
Unless your a lying filthy Canadian, always lying on the sly, dementing the viewpoints of the other that is. That’s what those fucks do, a entire nation founded upon the principles of Spite.
No, truths, as claimed, need have no material reference.
Yes, but your OP contained a false premise: step (A) was false. Therefore that which followed was invalid.
Obvious and strikingly false non sequitur. The premise above refers to “conclusions” on true premises, NOT on false premises, which (A) is.
You are not even wrong.
Says who?
You are confusing things for which we have empirical evidence, and which conform to proposed laws (contingent on continued compliance with said laws), on the one hand, and on the other hand with the Universe of unexplained and as yet unobserved phenomena: which we know of, but cannot prove, nor observe.
There is no ‘thus’ to be had out of this word salad.
The Universe does not recognise your concept of thingness. Let us imagine that on the darkside of the moon there are many rocks. Whilst we know there are many, we cannot prove the existence of a single one. Even if we were to land on the moon, beneath our feet would be trillions of atoms of various kinds, and whilst we might know they are present we could never count them all, yet each of them is a thing.
You are nothing but a flea on the arse of an elephant thinking that the Universe consists of an anus, yet never knowing the elephant or the fact that he has eyes, a big nose and ears. You also se shit coming out and must know that the elephants must have the means to eat, digest and gather food.
What do you mean by that?
I was actually justifying (A) here.
What is “The premise above”? Again, I was actually justifying (A) here. If you choose to deny (A) without considering my case, you are free to do so, but I think that would be contrary to the purpose of this philosophical discussion.
Wonderful.
Scientists. If they didn’t assume so, they would believe searching for answers is futile.
I don’t see how so.
If we can’t prove their existence, how do we know they really exist?
At this very moment the OP doesn’t even exist because I’m not reading it, so how could it be true if it doesn’t exist?
And, the same problem of perceptual convergence exists for the OP that exists for the oar.
Are you really going to argue the merits of solipsism and Berkeleyean idealism? You should find something more suitable for your intelligence.
It’s not the OP of which we’re discussing the truth, it’s the idea in the OP. As long as I perceive the idea in the OP, it can be true.
I haven’t. Often there are statements at the top of Wikipedia pages for philosophical positions that turn me off and make me believe I’m not of those positions. I’ve have thus come to form my own, independent philosophical positions. For example, the Wikipedia page for Solipsism currently has a statement at the top which reads “As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.” If solipsism holds the world doesn’t exist, then I’m not a solipsist. 
I mean come on; it’s 2015, I think we can do better than that.
The key word there is “illusion.” I don’t see a bent oar partially submerged in the water; I see a straight oar and the illusion of a bent oar both partially submerged in the water. There’s more to perception than just appearance. There’s my education in optics that comes into play. There’s my past experiences with partially submerged objects in water. There’s my feeling of the oar that revealed it’s actually straight. And so on.
Although that is much closer to the truth of it, even things that cannot be perceived at all, can be proven to exist. Such is the entire purpose of deduction.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonini’s_paradox
Bonini’s Paradox Zoot. I provided three complex sensory systems in active competition that each are driven by quite reasonable impulses as to what constitutes reality, but the combined end effect comes off absurd. In the picture, the girl is a complex of three behaviorisms (more actually, but that’s a much linger story, see Bonini’s paradox for details).
Solipsism is broken by integrating modes of contrasting knowledge from OUTSIDE that way of consequential thought, the outside logic is innate and just as logical, but not of the same characteristics inherent in the former.
You add layer upon layer of complexity, aspects of reality merge and simplify, as their chaotic elements balance out… while others go to shit when other conflicting, simple operations that aren’t mutually compatible line up.
Given we all have a cognitive specialization (Rainman as a autistic is tactile dominant and can do very quick computations, as a extreme case) we all approach an external understanding differently initially, however great our overall overlap is. Someone can be apparently off and still be very much in the right. Your mentally handicapped academic professors can start calling foul… Screams logical fallacies, without realizing it has only occurred on their end, and biologically the other person is doing exactly as they are supposed to.
So… however hard it is to map, let’s give it a try here to understand the discrepancies in assertion. At what points are the OPs later arguments valid, and invalid, biologically (and thus systemically paralleling, in logic)? Can everyone be right here, and we are all missing aspects of the other that in the overall human organism criss crosses, overlaps, yet is used only in part to parts, and never in whole consciously?
Look at the way the China Girl’s feet are pressed against the wall of the cliff. Presume your a behaviorist sitting on the walk observing people, and you see this phenomena pop up in several dozen people through the day. Your ideology enforces a presumption that you can’t tell from observation what is really going on inside of people’s minds… so you simply ask the presumably scared shitless pedestrians if they can verbally rationalize why they are pressed against the wall… what they imagine the effect to be, and the underlining physics supporting their strategy.
I think you’ll find a surprising divergence of answers, rooted in several emotions and phantasimical assumptions regarding expanse, stability, proximity, security, reliability, inherent avoidance of extremes, etc. Each indicate what reality IS.
Next day, similar batch of people… observing the same phenomena, but you add one more variable… you send that fat Scottish guy from Austin Powers down the walk towards, pass, and away… loud as hell, shaking everything up. I bet everyone will have much less variability in how they react to the fat Scot, and will explain their reactions in much similar ways.
But sensory systems don’t determine what constitutes reality, only people do. It is a kind of pathetic fallacy to say this, just like saying things are causally ‘determined’. Determined by what? Here, the evolution of the otherwise ordinary word ‘determine’ (as it is used in the material relations of human beings) becomes a conflated and confused philosophical concept. More on that here: aeternitatis.forumotion.com/t20- … d-freewill
I understand what your paradox is getting at though. These competing sensory systems are processing conflicting sets of sense data, but none of this comes into question unless the person who possesses these sensory organs thinks about all of this. You could say that the final feeling of certainty about any of this comes through the use of language.
I want to try something here though I don’t know if it will work.
The Asian woman has to think to herself ‘this bridge is safe to walk on because I trust those who have built it’, and the initial reflex of fear is overcome by this. Notice that this thought is not something her sensory organs give her in the moment. The fact that she trusts the builder of the bridge doesn’t come from any immediate experience there on the bridge. The feeling of fear is ‘ruled out’ by this final consideration, and this consideration is made with language, not with ‘feeling’. She does not feel the trust she has like she feels the glass deck beneath her feet, the nervous sweat on the back of her neck, the trembling of her knees, and so on.
In a way you can say that her certainty transcends any feeling produced by these conflicting sensory systems there at that moment. The phrase ‘this is safe to walk on’ does not come to her through her feet or her knowledge of the bridge’s construction, but rather through her having learned that bridge builders can be trusted.
Sensory systems do not constitute her reality here. Again, from where would the thought ‘this is safe’ come from there on the bridge if not through her belief that the builder can be trusted?
Deductive statements tell us nothing about the world, only something about themselves. The are tautological. Induction and inference, on the other hand, can tell us something about the world, but they must be ‘checked’, and what is not perceived cannot be checked. Just sayin’.
But we don’t perceive ideas, we perceive the world and have ideas about it, which are constructed with language.
The article is saying that according to you, the solipsist, the world cannot exist.
But, according to you, the oar must be bent if that is the way it is perceived. You aren’t getting this. You may infer that this is an illusion, but to confirm this you would have to reach into the water and feel the oar. Once you felt the oar was straight, you would prove to yourself your inference was false. Unless, of course, you had been taught to use the word ‘straight’ to refer to objects that were bent. But in this case, bent objects wouldn’t be called bent, but something else, and we are back to square one. Now you have a straight oar that appeared [insert some word other than ‘bent’]
We are up to our necks in a language game here, B, and the muddied water keeps getting deeper. I wish you could see this.
browser32:
That as a truth doesn’t hold water since many things have EVENTUALLY ULTIMATELY been proven which were first unperceived.
So, what is unperceived CAN BE proven to exist though at a later date.
there’s no time element in your deduction.
Either way, your thinking is faulty.
You stated that nothing exists below the surface layer of soil that you see and feel.
That has also been proven if you’re actually being absurd enough to believe that only what you perceive IS.
For example, many ancient towns and cities have been excavated and revealed where before they were not perceived.
Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory had no use for geologists but even he would not make the statement that there is nothing beneath where he stood. lol
You’re a Doubting Thomas.
A doubting Thomas is a skeptic who refuses to believe without direct personal experience—a reference to the Apostle Thomas, who refused to believe that the resurrected Jesus had appeared to the ten other apostles, until he could see and feel the wounds received by Jesus on the cross.
I’m a skeptic too but in this case – based on the fact that there have been many unperceived things which eventually gave way to reality, it’s impossible and illogical to absolutely assert that what cannot be perceived cannot be proven to exist since these things, which have at another time been unperceived and unknown, have been proven to exist.
[/quote]
Its still a stupid conclusion.
Go see Jurassic World. lol
It is pretty easy to prove that a square-circle does not exist. And one has never been perceived, even in the imagination.
But of course, one has to understand a minimum amount of logical thinking.