Ok!

Why would "if all this is an illusion?" make no sense. Can you explain, please? Note here that as per Descartes' cogito, he/I/you (when you copy Decartes's argument) can't be an illusion i.e. the duality of real-unreal remains unmolested.

That out of the way, I'd like to emphasize the point that if illusions can't be distinguished from the real McCoy, it is, sadly/not, a distinction without a difference [re Leibniz's (controversial) identity of indiscernibles).

Point made, point taken.

It's just that young girls seem fascinated by so-called (Disney) princesses and are forever looking for their prince charming. This obsession with (benevolent) despots is (psychologically) most intriguing, wouldn't you agree? It appears that there's a good chance that monarchies will make a comeback. Perhaps it's just a childish fantasy, but do we ever really grow up (re neoteny)?

Refusal to cast one's vote can be, inter alia, because one has lost faith in the process (rigging, poor quality candidates, and so on) or for the reason that one prefers/advocates for getting rid of democracy for a more authoritarian alternative. One reason is good, the other is bad.

Like babytalk or glossolalia? — 180 Proof

Words, symbols essentially, begging for meaning? A sign desperately seeking a referent, a partner?

OR

A primitive/superadvanced tongue with referents lost to history/waiting to be (re)discovered?

A private language can exist; however the private linguist, him/herself, may not understand it. There could be n number of reasons why this is the case, my favorite one being the circularity of the verifying process for meaning: The private linguist can only ask him/herself what a private word means but to ask this question means I'm unsure of the meaning; in essence I must know what I don't know, an impossibility, oui?

:chin:

As I understand it, from the Wikipedia article, superdeterminism is simply the position that a hidden-variable theory is viable if there's no free will, free will as indicated by the experimenters' liberty to choose what to measure, which experiments to perform. I'm fuzzy on the details though; rather unfortunate.

I don’t want your deference. Go read some philosophy. — Jamal

On it!

The older I get, the less wise I think I am. — Athena

Second childhood! To be one with the Tao, all you gotta do is reach a ripe old age, eh?

I was [am] a child with great wisdom — Athena

:up:

Mother knows best!

All discursive "disagreements", my man, presuppose shared (public) practices (language games). Refute that statement with a counter-example. — 180 Proof

Well, if other minds could be nothing more than my imagination, the concepts public, sharing, etc. are null and void, oui?

Temet nosce. — Oracle of Delphi

No, I'm guessing you just misinterpreted my use of the phrase "our existence", by which I meant the existence of me, Pie, 180, and everyone else aside from you. — Jamal

Ok. I defer to your better judgment.

I've made several, but no worries — Pie

Solipsism basically boils down to cogito ergo sum (re René Descrates). The only truth that we're absolutely sure of is our own existence as minds. The rest of what we experience, the so-called material world, including but not limited to other minds, could be a hallucination/illusion.

How do you respond?

If you really don't see it, then maybe you're not aware of how certain you actually are of our existence. We don't need proof for the things we're most certain of. That's pretty much what certainty is.

I for one am glad that I'm not trapped in your head. — Jamal

You've then missed the point of solipsism, oui?

What was said was for you and you alone. — Morpheus

The private language argument sweeps under the rug the fact that philosophy, in fact and all human discourse, is characterized by disagreement rather than concurrence, an indication of, in my humble opinion, that private languages do exist. Whence all this war s.l.?

I don't think we need to make this about Wittgenstein, even if he was one of many to point typical confusions on this issue.

As far as I can tell, you completely failed to respond to any of my points — Pie

That is true! Apologies. However, you didn't make an argument. Solipsism is one, oui?

I wish it were!

I don't buy into Wittgensteinism which, as far as I can tell, you're trying to peddle here.

How can we discuss other minds when the existence of other minds is exactly that which is thrown into doubt? There are ways to counter your point and counterpoints but for some reason I don't like them all that much.

P. S. Wittgenstein opined but, as per credible sources, never argued!

Why would you disagree? Isn't it quite clear that, in line with solipsism, the only thing we can be certain about is our own self, that too as somewhat nonphysical, à la Descartes? Of the material world, one can entertain its possibility (only) by compromising on our certainty, oui?

There really is no choice; if we want absolute 100% certainty, we'll all havta be solipsists. Only if we lower the bar of certitude can we engage with materialism. It's like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - more sure we are, less materialistic we are and less sure we are, the more materialistic we are (somethin' like that).

This is an exaggeration. The main purpose of the blocking troops were to prevent uncontrolled and panicked retreats. Most of the retreating troops were sent off to the front again and only a small minority were actually executed. — _db

I don't see how I'm guilty of hyperbole? I merely mentioned but left out the details, making it quite impossible for me to blow things out of proportion, oui monsieur?

Well, idealism is a chess game where your opponent is you, yourself. Both players are fully aware of each's strategy/game plan (relative, mutual omniscience :chin: ). Such a game should always result in a draw, but from my own experiences, there usually is a winning move with a checkmate that both gladdens & saddens for reasons that are obvious.

Great is he who conquers himself — Laozi

Omnipotence stone paradox? Nah, no paradox!

Oh yes, and even anti-metaphysicians are having their fun. Such as "lipstick on a tautology." Sit-down comedians. — Pie

When we do something, ensure the highest quality in your work, but that means one's gotta be an all-rounder, a polymath!

Objective: Arête
Qualifiaction: Omniscience
Ergo...

I imagine you have a mind. And you imagine I do. When you imagine that, what colour and size and texture do you imagine my mind to have? — Bartricks

And the question of the year award goes to Dr. Bartricks. Most excellent, monsieur, most excellent.

Allow me to attempt at an answer. The mind isn't an object like a mandarin which is orange, roundish, and rough to touch. It's more like walking (function) and has none of these properties. Nevertheless, the mind, for this reason amd this reason alone, can't be considered nonphysical. Plus, pick up a Gray's anatomy book and turn the page to ambulation - you'll get an idea of how walking is divided into, well, parts, the swing phase is one such part.

I think there is some kind of distinction to be made between problems that can be solved by finding prettier names for this or that and other kinds of problems — Pie

We can't resist, can we? Inside everyone is an artist, ready to reveal themselves, oui?

China, hullo! Nancy Pelosi has left Taiwan! Isn't that great or what?

:snicker:

I guess it all boils down to each one of us being utterly impotent in the face of so-called facts; you may kill every black swan to make the statement "all swans are white" true, but even then a good night's sleep is far from guaranteed.

Conscription is pointless, oui? A nation that has to force its people to fight for it is, in a sense, already vanquished. I recall reading about a Russian tactic in WW2 where orders were given to shoot soldiers retreating from battle. The tragedy of conscription on pain of death is outmatched only by the circumstances that lead up to it!

The market mechanism does not value moral outcomes — Benkei

That, in a nutshell, is the problem! Well said!

It's quite odd that this is so. In the simplest sense, neither the seller nor the buyer need to be morally upstanding individuals to close a deal.

Yet, I see real change happening over the past dozen or so years. There was a Thai-based company which was blacklisted for using coconuts picked by monkeys; then there's the Xinjiang boycott by America; more instances of the ethicization of economics can be pulled out of the pages of history. These are good signs, wouldn't you say?

Faith isn't just believing without reason. That should suffice.



Richard Dawkins, yeah, he does bring out the difference between scientist & philosopher!

Well, truth is, logic does set down impassable boundaries, clearly demarcates no-go areas in re thought/thinking. It can be likened to a cage of sorts, designed as it were to keep us confined within what passes as reasonable/rational/logical. In that sense, it does confine/restrain/constrain/limit the mind.

This then takes us to a very interesting topic, in question form, what lies beyond logic? Many have attempted to answer this question and one of the answers might give you goosebumps; that answer is God.

Ask the religious. They "believe in goober" for the sake of argument / discussion. :roll: — 180 Proof

:ok:

I understand you to be asking for a genealogical explanation. How did we end up with these choices ? Instead of taking the menu for granted and choosing a dish, we can ask why we are stuck with just this menu. Hegelian stuff perhaps. — Pie

I know, right? With so many possibilities, we're overwhelmed by overchoice!

Richard Dawkins, staunch atheist, also labeled not-so-lovingly as a militant atheist claims to be 7 on 1 to 10 scale of how certain he is that God doesn't exist. He leads his life under the assumption God is fiction. In other words, he's agnostic in re beliefs but atheistic in re deeds. That requires some faith, wouldn't you agree?

Since you're being facetious....Looking at what, with what? I think you're finding humourus the idea of a complete solipsist world. If it's all in your mind, there's no eyes, ears, other minds, cheese curls, Netflix...nada. Cheese curls and Netflix still go together nicely. But the flavours and tv images are all imagined.

As for causation - Isn't it possible the universe did NOT have a cause? Why not? Similarly a solipsistic fever dream could have no cause, or none that we can imagine. — GLEN willows

If you get the impression that I'm being facetious, apologies, it's unintended. Quite sad that I give off that rather annoying vibe.

Anyway, my advice to you is google counterarguments to idealism & solipsism. Wikipedia has good articles on the topic - you'll find interesting for/against arguments for these positions there. Speaking for myself, they're above my pay grade as it were.

Hobbes and Spinoza (as I understand it) didn't run away from those implications. For Hobbes, the mind was subject to the same laws (was ultimately material, or determined by its material substrate.) (I'm fuzzy on some of this and open to correction. ) — Pie

Well, I'd say that nobody's really sat down and thought these matters through seriously. What I'd like is a treatise on not points of view (on issues) but detailed analyses (of the issues). I don't wanna know why this/that is possible, I wanna know why we've been reduced to exploring the possibility space in the first place.

Oh!

Idealism & Solipsism were then, inter alia, reactions to Newtonian determinism which Kant had endorsed.

The mind could still be deterministic though, with its own set of laws, oui?

My theory is that it was an attempt to protect God from Newton (free will from a world that began to look determined.) Kant also hid his own magic stuff in the thing-in-itself. — Pie

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

Last I checked, Newton was a very religious person. Kant was too; after all we're talking about the 17^th & 18^th centuries, the hey days of faith.

Perhaps you're talking about something else.

No self without other nor illusion without the real. — Pie

Aye! I never understood dualism!

This exactly how I felt my first and second time going through philosophy studies. I'm trying to define "absurd" because both special relativity and quantum mechanics were called absurd...in fact why not go back to that absurd "round earth" theory Galileo was trying to foist on us???

Logically impossible is a different thing - but nothing is logically impossible about it, is there? Any minute now Mark Zuckerberg could appear before me as a hologram. like the "man behind the curtain.", and congratulate me for doing a double-blind test of Meta Virtual World #398. (Actually him choosing me to be the test subject WOULD be absurd)

Silly analogy, but my point is an imagined world is not logical impossible. — GLEN willows

I see! There's a logical impossibility at the heart of solipsism & idealism. To disprove them we havta, in a sense, look without looking.

I think that feeling you have is a common one and it's probably a big reason it's so hard to get people to agree on this issue. For what it's worth, I don't think the information I included presented any kind of unified model of how the mind works. As I noted, I picked out particular aspects of the mind that interest me and for which I had information I consider credible — T Clark

Hallelujah!

The possibility remains that I'm mistaking ignorance for complexity. There are many occasions when what one thought was complicated turns out to be quite simple.

I disagree. One of the easiest (if not THE MOST EASIEST) to make money today is to find a way to exploit others. By either making others feel like they are not worth anything (or in some way a substandard citizen or human being), one is able to make them live/work in conditions that they would not be willing to deal with otherwise. And even if you can't make them believe as you want them to you can always either violence or the threat of violence in order to make them behave the way you want them to.

It has been going on since the beginning of civilization and will likely continue to go on for the foreseeable future. Western civilization has been built on the backs of the poor and disenfranchised and it will continue to be that way since it seems to be the easiest/profitable way for those in power to run things. — dclements

Indeed. The poltico-economic environment (conservatism + capitalism) is conducive to exploitation. It looks like a work in progress - the systems we're working under/with need more work obviously and we can see changes made in the right direction. Trust me, we'll get there...someday!

How can you be sure that it isn't like organized crime in that there is a active conspiracy among certain wealthy people to undermine those that are either poor and/or the working class. I'm not an expert in US history but there has been times when certain business/corporate interests have mobilized much like a small military to undermine those that work and have actively harassed/killed those that have tried to do things like form unions/take actions for worker rights.

West Virginia coal wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_coal_wars — dclements

I suppose if easy money, a quick buck can be made via exploitation then (wealthy) folks will, quite naturally, take this shortcut to riches. However, to my reckoning, this route to big money comes with risks that make it a bad choice. What was the aftermath of the coal wars? I bet the coal companies lost, big time!

I used to consider myself a positive (or gnostic) atheist for decades and I don't recall ever having "faith" in either "scientific materialism" or "logical positivism". The phrase "atheistic faiths" is patently oxymoronic. Besides, a 'working assumption' (e.g. scientific materialism) is not synonymous with 'faith in mysteries' (or miracles or magic or supernatural entities). Apples and oranges. Your incoherent preface, sir, discourages me from watching your video. :confused: — 180 Proof

Can religions be working assumptions and is it prudent/wise to believe in God (re Pascal's wager)?