Indicators of reality aside from pinching noses.

[cotner]

This is the background of the present thread.

 

 

http://hypography.com/forums/201385-post59.html

 

- Yesterday, 08:42 AM

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Posted by cotner

Cognitive science seems to be going all over town just to prove that we exist, and that should be a not ever to be questioned assumption; when since humans are the only ones who are the case in discourse about assumptions, the simple route is just to pinch your nose to know you exist, and pinch your neighbor's nose to make him know that he also exists outside his mind and your mind, and that you both exist;

 

 

Scientifically, what you say is true, but it is not true philosophically. Scientifically, it is pointless questioning whether our subjective experiences are the result of an objective world that exists outside our experience of it. It gets you nowhere. So we take it as an axiom that the universe exists, and there is no need to question that.

 

Philosophically, that is not sufficient. We cannot assume that the universe exists outside of our experience of it, because there is no way we can objectively prove that. So, unfortunately (or fortunately if you don't like having your nose pinched), your simple test fails:

• There is no need to pinch your own nose to prove that you exist. Merely thinking of pinching your nose (or just thinking) is sufficient proof.
  
• Pinching your neighbour's nose proves nothing:
  • If he is just a figment of your imagination, pinching his nose makes him no more real. It could all be taking place in your imagination.
    
  • Whereas, if you are just a figment of his imagination, pinching his nose does not prove that you exist. It could all be taking place in his imagination.

So it is fundamentally impossible to prove that anything exists outside yourself. This is a matter of considerable importance to me, because, a one time, I doubted that the universe objectively existed. But I eventually found good reasons for believing that the univese exists objectively, even though I can't prove it:

• Occasionally when I met someone's eyes, I knew there was an intelligent being behind those eyes.
  
• There is so much man-made technology, that I only superficially understand, that I believe that others exist who understand it better than I do. I could not make those things.

Now, I'd repeat, these are not proofs, but to me they are better indicators than going round pinching noses :edevil:

 

.

 

I wished, jedaisoul, that you would not disappear with any convenient reason you think yourself as justifying your disappearance, when I am getting very close to come to some conciliation with you over an issue.

 

I am aware that we are all having fun or a pastime here, even though in the process at least for some of us like yours truly we hope to read something personal from others which will in my case at least make me feel better.

 

So far you have not made me feel better -- of course you don't seem to care about that; at least try to acquire the habitual skill of not disappearing, just hang around and if you have nothing further to add to an exchange except that you are just keeping a thread going on with another supposedly useless post from your part, simply do an exit by uttering "I am out of here, it's no fun here for me any longer."

 

-------------------

 

Now, I'd repeat, these are not proofs, but to me they are better indicators than going round pinching noses ;) -- jedaisoul

 

You think that there are better indicators than pinching noses for in your own case believing that we exist and there is an objective universe outside our minds?

 

Suppose now you just repeat in fifty words or less what those indicators are and how they are better than pinching noses.

 

 

And don't disappear again.

 

 

 

cotner

 

 

.

He, jedaisoul, replied that he had already given his indicators of reality in 46 words, but did not pinpoint where those 46 words are located in his reply.

 

 

My purpose in this thread is to locate those 46 words, which task is easy enough, then to determine whether the 46 words are relaying any indicators of reality which are better indicators of reality than pinching noses.

 

 

cotner

[questor]

Why do you need to know whether or not you exist? Whether you do or not

will not change your life, or goals, or dreams. You will continue to live as you have before you asked this question, with no reward for finding the truth. If you do not exist, what then? If you do exist, what changes will you make?

[questor]

Why do you need to know whether or not you exist? Whether you do or not

will not change your life, or goals, or dreams. You will continue to live as you have before you asked this question, with no reward for finding the truth. If you do not exist, what then? If you do exist, what changes will you make? Read good books, listen to good music, date beautiful women and you will no longer be interested in this question.

[cotner]

I am sure that I exist and I know it and am happy to exist. No, I have no doubts whatsoever.

 

 

But I like to ask you whether you have any doubts about your existence?

 

 

Why do I want to know whether I exist or not, it does not change my life for the better?

 

Knowing that I exist makes me feel better than knowing that I am on the departure platform to extinction of my existence, i.e., death; however, since people usually except for a minority don't just suddenly the next moment of time die, I am what they call morally certain or in the normal circumstances of my daily existence not going to die -- even though it is a possibility that I will die after typing the next letter or the next or the next..., yet I don't die.

 

 

I feel better knowing that I exist as compared to people I know who have gone into extinction; but that comparison is an unequal comparison because the dead cannot tell us how they feel, better or worse.

 

Just the same compared to a person who is slated to die owing to katabolism overtaking anabolism, I feel better for myself -- but I sympathize with the dying who is not happy to go, who does not feel swell.

 

 

 

About the thread, it is just for fun, because I know that people who love to think that they are pretty smart to doubt their existence, they also go to the john and look forward to the next meal and the next act of love; and they have to work or had better work for a living, and keep safe -- unless their doubt about their existence come true and they face the sudden imminent unavoidable death, like those poor people in Iraq in the few moments they realize that they have met what they always fear, a terrorist's bomb exploding right in their immediate presence.

 

 

 

This thread is just for fun, to read the words of people who think that they are pretty smart to entertain doubts even maintain that they cannot be certain that they exist and others also, etc.

 

--------------------

 

Do you enjoy fun the way I am enjoying it here?

 

Please give some of your time to tell me which 46 words of jedaisoul are about indicators of his existence or non-existence which are better than pinching noses.

 

 

cotner

[questor]

Cotner, I do not waste time discussing things of no importance. There are many important things to discuss in the time left to me. You and I exist, and you and I will die, use your remaining time to make society better.

[jedaisoul]

My purpose in this thread is to locate those 46 words, which task is easy enough, then to determine whether the 46 words are relaying any indicators of reality which are better indicators of reality than pinching noses.

Here:

• Occasionally when I met someone's eyes, I knew there was an intelligent being behind those eyes.
  
• There is so much man-made technology, that I only superficially understand, that I believe that others exist who understand it better than I do. I could not make those things.
  

I have already said that these are not proof, therefore what is a "better" indicator is subjective. These are indicators that were meaningful to me. Everyone else is entitled to their own choices. Also, I have already given the reasons why, for me, pinching noses does not do it.

 

If other people feel motivated to contribute their own choices, that's fine, but I'm not sure what more I have to contribute to this thread. So I'll monitor it from time to time, and contribute if and when I feel it appropriate.

[jedaisoul]

Why do you need to know whether or not you exist? Whether you do or not will not change your life, or goals, or dreams.

The question is not whether I exist, but whether you, and the rest of the universe, exist outside my awareness of you.

You will continue to live as you have before you asked this question...

Coming to the conclusion that the universe does objectively exist made an immense difference to the way I have lead my life.

...with no reward for finding the truth.

It may sound trite, but for a person who seeks the truth, knowlege is its own reward.

Read good books, listen to good music, date beautiful women and you will no longer be interested in this question.

I have read good books, I do listen to good music, and I have dated attractive women. I am still interested in this question.

[cotner]

 

Posted by cotner

My purpose in this thread is to locate those 46 words, which task is easy enough, then to determine whether the 46 words are relaying any indicators of reality which are better indicators of reality than pinching noses.

 

Here:

 

• Occasionally when I met someone's eyes, I knew there was an intelligent being behind those eyes.
  
• There is so much man-made technology, that I only superficially understand, that I believe that others exist who understand it better than I do. I could not make those things.
  

 

I have already said that these are not proof, therefore what is a "better" indicator is subjective. These are indicators that were meaningful to me. Everyone else is entitled to their own choices. Also, I have already given the reasons why, for me, pinching noses does not do it.

 

If other people feel motivated to contribute their own choices, that's fine, but I'm not sure what more I have to contribute to this thread. So I'll monitor it from time to time, and contribute if and when I feel it appropriate.

 

I have already said that these are not proof, therefore what is a "better" indicator is subjective. These are indicators that were meaningful to me. Everyone else is entitled to their own choices. Also, I have already given the reasons why, for me, pinching noses does not do it.

 

Are you telling me that it is useless for me to say anything to make you change your attitude, because "what is a "better" indicator is subjective"?

 

 

But first, I have a question for you, are you now certain that you exist outside your mind and others also outside your mind and theirs?

 

 

You are one dude very fond of making distinctions.

 

So, suppose you just put your skills in making distinctions to work, and tell me what is subjective and what is to be certain.

 

 

And don't disappear on the pre-dispatched justification that you have nothing more to contribute to this thread; why? because you can contribute if you so much as will come to see we could attain any kind of a conciliation between us and with others on the issue of this thread, that pinching noses is a better indicator of reality than the kind described your 46 words whatever -- if you would be clear which you are not, for not addressing the question.

 

 

Anyway, just then contribute some distinctions about the kinds of "subjective" you know; do you mean by subjective as in your words: "I have already said that these are not proof, therefore what is a "better" indicator is subjective" -- you meaning that:

 

Since for you there is no proof or you cannot prove objective reality outside of your thinking, you can just be subjective about which indicator of objective reality is a better indicator of objective reality, and it is better than pinching noses, yours and others'?

 

Just answer that question, if nothing else -- because you have nothing else to contribute to the thread.

 

 

And if you think that I am always asking questions, then you ask me some if you care.

 

 

 

cotner

[cotner]

Cotner, I do not waste time discussing things of no importance. There are many important things to discuss in the time left to me. You and I exist, and you and I will die, use your remaining time to make society better.

 

Just to employ the tack of making distinctions, are you into an attitude or into a rational conclusion?

 

 

cotner

[jedaisoul]

I have already said that these are not proof, therefore what is a "better" indicator is subjective. These are indicators that were meaningful to me. Everyone else is entitled to their own choices. Also, I have already given the reasons why, for me, pinching noses does not do it.

Are you telling me that it is useless for me to say anything to make you change your attitude, because "what is a "better" indicator is subjective"?

No.

 

But first, I have a question for you, are you now certain that you exist outside your mind and others also outside your mind and theirs?

No.

 

So, suppose you just put your skills in making distinctions to work, and tell me what is subjective and what is to be certain.

All our awareness of the world around us takes place inside our heads, and is affected by our preconceptions. We do not simply see what is around us. It is subjective. Therefore we have no way of determining whether what we see actually exists. "Reality" could be a persistent dream that we dream in between times when we are "asleep".

 

What would it take to be certain? There is no logical way to be certain, so I cannot describe it. Apparent certainty can be achieved by belief, but that's just delusion. Of course, a delusion could, by chance, be correct. However, we'd have no way of knowing that was the case, so it remains a delusion.

 

Anyway, just then contribute some distinctions about the kinds of "subjective" you know; do you mean by subjective as in your words: "I have already said that these are not proof, therefore what is a "better" indicator is subjective" -- you meaning that:

Since for you there is no proof or you cannot prove objective reality outside of your thinking, you can just be subjective about which indicator of objective reality is a better indicator of objective reality, and it is better than pinching noses, yours and others'?

What?

[cotner]

No.

[...]

 

All our awareness of the world around us takes place inside our heads, and is affected by our preconceptions. We do not simply see what is around us. It is subjective. Therefore we have no way of determining whether what we see actually exists. "Reality" could be a persistent dream that we dream in between times when we are "asleep".

 

What would it take to be certain? There is no logical way to be certain, so I cannot describe it. Apparent certainty can be achieved by belief, but that's just delusion. Of course, a delusion could, by chance, be correct. However, we'd have no way of knowing that was the case, so it remains a delusion.

 

[...]

 

 

.

Thanks, jedaisoul, for reacting to my preceding post.

 

What you are saying is that everything you are aware of is inside your head, but you are not denying categorically that there are things outside your awareness, only you have to believe them and it could be a delusion, belief that is.

 

I am apprehensive that with this post from me, you will disappear, because I am going to ask you questions again and you will not want to answer them on the ground that either you are not aware of the questions, or you are not aware of your head, or you are aware of your head and your head is aware of my questions and you don't categorically deny your head's and my questions' existence but you don't believe them, and on and on and on.

 

That kind of a subjective attitude is what I might call a perverse stubborn resistance against being simple and clear, choosing instead to be subjectively complicated in postulating so many distinctions and so many reservations both spoken out and also conspicuously implied, easily seen by yours truly and any man in the street intelligent and curious to deal with your subjectivity of an aware-ful head that is all up to your belief, etc., etc., etc., etc.

 

May I just invite you to laugh as you might be aware in your head subjectively of the bizarre humor in your situation which I hope you believe you can if you be intelligent comprehend even though it is an illusion, etc., etc., etc., etc.

 

Hahahaha!

 

 

 

Anyway, I will just ask you one question:

 

Do you

tihs

?

[ Read that word tihs in reverse ].

 

 

I fear you will disappear now, or if not you will continue to go into your kind of drivel which I sure if you were in court and you talk that way the judge will declare you in contempt if not put a straight-jacket on you and dispathc you pronto to the local psychiatric asylum whatever safe-house for the incoherently insane.

 

Again then:

 

Do you

tihs

?

 

 

 

cotner

[jedaisoul]

I fear you will disappear now, or if not you will continue to go into your kind of drivel which I sure if you were in court and you talk that way the judge will declare you in contempt if not put a straight-jacket on you and dispatch you pronto to the local psychiatric asylum whatever safe-house for the incoherently insane.

 

You fear correctly. However, I would just point out that a court of law is not a place to discuss "your kind of drivel" a.k.a. metaphysics. This is. And lastly, if what I am saying seems incoherent to you, might that be because you do not understand it?

[cotner]

You fear correctly. However, I would just point out that a court of law is not a place to discuss "your kind of drivel" a.k.a. metaphysics. This is. And lastly, if what I am saying seems incoherent to you, might that be because you do not understand it?

 

 

.

Again, you revert to your already notorious way of interacting in this forum, you choose to disappear either completely from a thread or selectively by not answering a question addressed to you.

 

 

I asked you this question, and I am asking you again:

 

Do you

tihs

?

[ Read that word tihs in reverse ].

 

 

 

I really like to explore what's bugging you; one thing I am now certain of: you are one abuser of philosophy and more exactly the faculty of speech.

 

 

Your forum profile is a regrettable but thereby rich venue of topics for psychological and philosophical investigations.

 

 

More on your abuses of philosophy and speech later, right now I invite you seriously to answer my simple question, here again:

 

Do you

tihs

?

[ Read that word tihs in reverse ].

 

 

Just the same, withal, let us have a good laugh together.

 

 

 

Hahahaha!

 

 

Two topics for new threads can be provoked from your attitude that what is valid in science is not valid in philosophy and what is transacted in courts of law is not metaphysically justified.

 

But again, first answer this simple question:

 

Do you

tihs

?

[ Read that word tihs in reverse ].

 

 

So that I can ascertain that it is possible to connect with you.

 

If you feel like asking me questions in return, please do; and I will answer them honestly, never disappearing.

 

Let's laugh together if you can, otherwise I fear that you might be an artificial 'dis-person' intelligence.

 

 

Hahahaha!

 

 

 

 

cotner

[cotner]

Cotner, I do not waste time discussing things of no importance. There are many important things to discuss in the time left to me. You and I exist, and you and I will die, use your remaining time to make society better.

 

I wished questor would not disappear from this thread on the plea that questioning one's own existence is a waste of time.

 

 

I am of the sincere mind that most probably the greatest task of philosophy is to expose and rebut effectively the abusers of philosophy and speech.

 

 

I have defined philosophy several times in this web forum, and allow me to repeat it here:

 

Philosophy is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

 

 

If abusers of philosophy and speech would be willing to proffer their own personally worded definition of philosophy, people who take philosophy seriously as an instrument for knowing life and the universe better, will notice that abusers of philosophy and speech have for their definition of philosophy, one that does not include the role of reason and the purpose of searching for the programming in everything or in anything.

 

The wonder is why they still talk philosophy, and the investigation should be a psychological one on the motivation of human behavior or misbehavior.

 

 

 

cotner

[jedaisoul]

Again, you revert to your already notorious way of interacting in this forum, you choose to disappear either completely from a thread or selectively by not answering a question addressed to you.

That's the way it works. The author of a thread is obliged to answer all questions put to him/her. I'm not the author of this thread, you are. I am not obliged to answer a question from someone who has been abusive to me. Particularly when a question is written backwards, presumably to avoid the attention of the moderators.

 

I asked you this question, and I am asking you again:

Do you tihs?

[ Read that word tihs in reverse ].

I felt it preferable to ignore this.

 

I really like to explore what's bugging you; one thing I am now certain of: you are one abuser of philosophy and more exactly the faculty of speech...

 

Your forum profile is a regrettable but thereby rich venue of topics for psychological and philosophical investigations...

 

Let's laugh together if you can, otherwise I fear that you might be an artificial 'dis-person' intelligence.

Do you seriously expect people to give their time to discuss things with you, when you chose to be personally abusive?

[cotner]

That's the way it works. The author of a thread is obliged to answer all questions put to him/her. I'm not the author of this thread, you are. I am not obliged to answer a question from someone who has been abusive to me. Particularly when a question is written backwards, presumably to avoid the attention of the moderators.

 

 

I felt it preferable to ignore this.

 

 

Do you seriously expect people to give their time to discuss things with you, when you chose to be personally abusive?

 

.

I am of a humorous temperament but I would not agree with your assessment that I am personally abusive toward you.

 

No, I will not go your way in demanding that you distinguish what you mean by being abusive toward you: from your perception or from my intention? -- which you cannot know however much you think, and you are aware of your thinking and your head is aware but you only believe which believing is all an illusion, etc., etc., etc.

 

All I am trying to do is to have fun and in the process trying to understand why people think and talk the way they do, and hope to get people to cooperate in my endeavor; I invite you to do the same with me, and I will not at all feel you are abusive toward me.

 

 

Why do I write that word **** in reverse? to escape the censure of moderators? That would be silly of me if that were my purpose, for I cannot imagine any moderators who would blush at the mention of ****, unless in the most priggish of forums manned by the most straightlaced deadpan robotic dis-persons.

 

I write the word **** in reverse for a literary device to get attention of people, starting with yourself.

 

What do you think: which is a better way to get your attention, by using the words defecate, move bowel, eliminate colonic waste matters, in place of asking you to read tihs in reverse?

 

 

Anyway, let's not talk about shitting; okay then, answer this simple and clear question for the purpose of our determination which indicator is better for knowing your and mine, our respective distinct objective realities: thinking as claimed by you or pinching noses as claimed by me.

 

 

Do you

traf

?

 

[ Read that word traf in reverse. ] *

 

 

 

cotner

 

 

*

Please just answer the simple question about farting, which is an experience of all humans who do eat and drink and digest foods and thereby also release gas and solid wastes. And if you think that I am being abusive toward you, it's all in your thought; so don't believe your foolish illusion, etc., etc., etc.

[cotner]

I have discovered a new fallacy, I call it the fallacy of argument, or argumentum ad argumentum.

 

You see, since everyone has been conditioned in philosophy to establish facts by words through arguing, you can't convince anyone to see the fact of any particular case at issue by using words alone, if your opponent is a perverter of reason; because your opponent will just bring in more and more words to muddle the question, so that you lose your cool because you know that he is malingering, even though he himself might not know it for being himself the victim of his own argumentum ad argumentum fallacy, and believe himself to be very keen and logical.

 

That is why also Alfred Nobel, in my humble opinion, did not establish a prize for philosophy.

 

 

How do we expose the fallacy of argumentum ad argumentum?

 

Very simple: in our present context, the issue is your and my and his and every human person's factual existence distinct from any other's, you must go outside words and request of your opponent to do a simple harmless experiment, together with you, namely, that your opponent pinch his nose and your nose and you will do likewise; if he refuses to undertake that simple experiment, you can proceed to everyday questions about physiological functions like bowel movement and breaking wind.

 

 

Here is a story from yours truly:

 

 

A good king once runs his kingdom so well that everyone has the wherewithals to live a happy existence and die contentedly having lived a full life as luck would enable him to do so.

 

One day a pseudo-philosopher came by and started telling the people that they could not be sure they exist except in their own each one's mind by thinking. The people were all perplexed no end.

 

The king happened to be pretty smart himself and smarter than the pseudo-philosopher, so he had the pseudo-philosopher hauled to a solitary glass cubicle where everyone could see and talk to him through small holes in the glass panels.

 

The king then told his people that since this dude believes that he only exists in his mind by his thinking, then he could think his way to food and water.

 

 

Now, there are two endings to this story:

 

One ending goes like this: When the pseudo-philosopher realizes that his game was up, he admits and declares that he now knows for sure as he shits and farts that he exists outside his mind even when he is not thinking; the king released him from his solitary confinement, and he, the pseudo-philosopher, took his leave pronto and expresso. And no pseudo-philosopher ever sets foot again in this king's realm.

 

The other ending goes like as follows: When the pseudo-philosopher realizes that his game was up, he was so stubborn and proud to admit it, saying to himself that he would rather die than confess to his stupidity of a philosophy, and he did die from starvation and dehydration in an agonizing death.

 

And you know what? Again, no pseudo-philosopher also ever sets foot in the realm of that king as long as he lives; but pseudo-philosophers outside proclaim their dead and non-longer existing comrade as a martyr to the cause of non-existence.

 

 

 

Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!

 

 

 

cotner