↪Chet Hawkins I can prove that if you have one banana and you eat it, you won't have a banana left. There are trillions of such things that I can prove. So, it's incorrect to say that there is no proof. — Truth Seeker

The banana is still there, inside you. You are partially wrong.
Someone may give you another banana. You are partially wrong.

Your examples are too limited to have much use. Experience is not limited in that way, or let's say experience is LESS limited.

Your proofs leave much to be desired. They are in fact not proofs at all.

No, the first banana has been broken down by your digestive system. You can't eat it again. You can't sell it or donate it to someone else either. Yes, you could acquire a new banana by receiving it as a gift or by buying it or buy planting a banana tree in your garden, etc. All of these are truths that I or you or others could prove. There are literally trillions of such examples. Here is one: humans need oxygen to stay alive.

There are trillions of such things that I can prove. — Truth Seeker

You left off, "...to a reasonable person."

Unfortunately Chet's schtick is going nuclear all of the time.

I think he is delusional and talks nonsense!

I think he is delusional and talks nonsense! — Truth Seeker

Well, that link is to a chapter of Stephen Law's book, Believing Bullshit. :wink:

Thank you for the link. I have begun to read it.

They are not really right — Chet Hawkins

That’s a meaningless statement if you can’t know anything.

Why did you say “really”? What’s real?

delusion in ALL cases — Chet Hawkins

That sounds like certainty speak.

As soon as we believe there is no knowledge, we contradict this belief by speaking.

No it is not. This is wrong. Confidence is informed by fear, yes. And fear is the patterns you are referring to as experience. But it also includes BEING in those situations. So, it can be hard to speak of single emotions rather than all together in experience. — Chet Hawkins

I disagree. How can a confidence backed by empirical experience and evidence can be related to fear? You might have fear when you assert something you don't have concrete knowledge, evidence or experience, so you don't know what you are talking about.

What if I exist as an immaterial soul that is experiencing the illusion of being in physical body on a physical planet in a physical universe? — Truth Seeker

If you could provide some evidence or arguments for your "What if" presumption and imagination, then we could further analyse if the what if claim is justified.

But without that, it would be just your unverified and irrational belief, which sounds like the beliefs or stories belonging to in the realm of esotericism, science fiction, or religious beliefs. It would be difficult to discuss under philosophical investigation.

It's not a belief. It's an imaginative exploration of a hypothetical situation. This is what science-fiction writers do. This is why I said "What if".

I agree.

I agree.

I agree. — Truth Seeker

:nerd: :ok:

It's not a belief. It's an imaginative exploration of a hypothetical situation. This is what science-fiction writers do. This is why I said "What if". — Truth Seeker

Science-Fiction sounds acceptable. :)

What if I exist as an immaterial soul that is experiencing the illusion of being in physical body on a physical planet in a physical universe? — Truth Seeker

I thought that was one of the trillions of things you could disprove?

It's not possible to test that hypothesis. Haven't you read my other posts?

Quoting myself:

There are many hypotheses that can't be tested e.g. simulation hypothesis, illusion hypothesis, dream hypothesis, hallucination hypothesis, solipsism hypothesis, philosophical zombie hypothesis, panpsychism hypothesis, deism hypothesis, theism hypothesis, pantheism hypothesis, panentheism hypothesis, etc. Just because a hypothesis can't be tested it does not mean it is true or false. It just means that it is currently untestable.

Science-fiction is fun.

Haven't you read my other posts? — Truth Seeker

I haven't.

When you prove P, you are disproving not-P.

Just because a hypothesis can't be tested it does not mean it is true or false.

So the hypothesis isn't false.

You say you can prove a trillion things. I imagine those things include being here, being made of matter, typing this post. When you say you can prove these things, you are also saying you are disproving the contrary. You are disproving that you "exist as an immaterial soul that is experiencing the illusion of being in physical body on a physical planet in a physical universe". So it is not longer a hypothetical, because for you, it is false.

When I say that I can prove trillions of things I mean things like:

1. If I hit the wall with my head it hurts my head.
2. Humans need oxygen to stay alive.
3. Eating a banana means you no longer have the banana to sell or donate or eat again.
4. I am typing in English right now.
5. I have two eyes.
6. The capital of Nepal is currently Kathmandu.
7. The Earth orbits the Sun.
8. The Moon orbits the Earth.
9. Humans don't know how to travel faster than the speed of light.
10. Dogs have four legs.

I don't have the time to list trillions of such things but I think you get the picture.

The untestable hypotheses I listed remain untestable.

I have two eyes. — Truth Seeker

This implies you have a material body and are under no illusion of being otherwise.

7. The Earth orbits the Sun.
8. The Moon orbits the Earth. — Truth Seeker

These imply there is a material world.

So how is "I exist as an immaterial soul that is experiencing the illusion of being in physical body on a physical planet in a physical universe" a hypothetical?

It appears that I have a material body. It appears that we live in a material universe. If it were an illusion, we would expect it to appear as if it is real. We can't test the hypothesis. That is my point.

You said you can prove these things. "It appears" is not what most people would accept in a proof.

The list does not deal with simulation/hallucination/dream/illusion hypotheses as they can't be tested. Also, it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something e.g. unicorns, fairies, angels, demons, gods, etc.

So, the statements below are still provable by using evidence.

1. If I hit the wall with my head it hurts my head.
2. Humans need oxygen to stay alive.
3. Eating a banana means you no longer have the banana to sell or donate or eat again.
4. I am typing in English right now.
5. I have two eyes.
6. The capital of Nepal is currently Kathmandu.
7. The Earth orbits the Sun.
8. The Moon orbits the Earth.
9. Humans don't know how to travel faster than the speed of light.
10. Dogs have four legs.

Most people don't take the simulation/hallucination/dream/illusion hypothesis seriously. Just as most people don't take the solipsism hypothesis seriously. It is extremely unlikely that the world we perceive is a simulation/hallucination/dream/illusion given how complex everything is. This is why even I don't take them seriously. Although, Elon Musk seems to think that it is more likely that we live in a simulation than not!

You know that proving X means disproving not-X, yes?

Yes, I understand what you mean by proving X means disproving not-X. Even in the unlikely event that my body and the universe are simulated, I still have two eyes. They may be real eyes or simulated eyes but they do the same job.

Even in the unlikely event that my body and the universe are simulated, I still have two eyes — Truth Seeker

And what about the event that you are an immaterial soul that is experiencing the illusion of being in physical body on a physical planet in a physical universe?

In the unlikely event that I am an immaterial soul experiencing the illusion of being in a physical body on a physical planet in a physical universe, my illusory body has two illusory eyes.

Yes, this is a tough one to start off with, but in my view, the true nature of the self goes back to Descartes' 'cogito ergo sum', which means 'I think, therefore, I am'. That is from the 17th Century. What makes this question more interesting these days is the arrival of AI and machines that simulate thought processes.

Let's assume that the machine provides us with a simulation of a thinking being, who can reason, cogitate and think. Once we enter into dialogue with the AI, are we having a real discussion or is it a simulation? Within the boundaries of the simulation could the machine be said to have selfhood? If the machine possesses selfhood or 'subjectivity' how does that relate to ours within the boundaries of the simulation? The true nature of the human self arises, therefore, with respect to its relationship to machinery via technology.

There are many theories about selfhood, but nowadays we have to also take into account the question of whether machines can have true selves, and if not, then why not. Why would it be absolutely impossible for a machine to have a self? If we can first answer that question then we could move on to more precisely describing the nature of our own selves. I think, therefore, I am.

Welcome to the forum. How would we discern whether or not an AI was conscious? We can't even discern which human is actually conscious and which human is a philosophical zombie, that's if philosophical zombies are real.

The self is a curious thing. It cannot be a thing because if it were it would be becoming a thing, and so not yet a thing; but yet it is me myself that is wondering about this “thing” called self.

Curious. How can myself not be a thing as I think these things to myself?

Before we might identify such a curious thing, that must be and must become, don’t we need to know if there can be any thing at all to know, if we can know anything? If we can’t know, how could we know what a self is?

Descartes’ cogito purports to prove the self exists. But it does no such proof. As to existence, it takes the existence of thinking as its premise, and as “I am thinking” already means or includes “I am” it does not prove existence but assumes it.

Instead Descartes really proved that there is one thing we can know. He proved there was knowledge of separately existing things. He proved if I know that I exist, I know the truth, because by knowing that I exist, I am knowing that I am knowing. His proof is better said “I exist; therefore I can know.”

So he proved knowledge works because while I am in the act of knowing I exist, I am in the act of knowing something I can’t deny, so it is true knowledge.

Now, what do I know of this “I”, this “self”, this knowing being, beyond the fact that it exists? Nothing! Or at most very little. Descartes thought he could prove it was immaterial substance, like “soul”. But we still have the same problems identifying something fixed and permanent that might be knowable. I still am becoming. The “I” in “I am becoming” is still undone in every changing instant. He can make very few claims about what the “I” actually is (even though something is knowing something exists), let alone call it “soul” and think he has said anything at all that we know about it.

When it comes to the question of what is a self, the most we can say to maybe start to construct an answer is that “something is knowing that something exists.”

Knowing the self is a curious thing.