• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Comparison: Science vs. gazerism

davidsmith73 said:
So if it can't be said to exist and it can't be denied then perhaps it's a meaningless concept?
Click to expand...
God, the spirit world, and the physical world are not meaningless concepts. As long as humans have concepts anyway. But the value of some concepts exceed others. The care of your children in the physical world, for instance, is a valued concept. So valued that if other entities perceive you are not doing so they will deprive you of your children and your liberty to interact with the physical world.
davidsmith73 said:
Sorry to be repeating myself, but for the concept of evidence to work we require the assumption that an external reality exists, so to claim that we have evidence for its existence is circular. Like you said, the existence of this reality can't be proven or not proven so I suggest we should try to do away with the concept and try to formulate a philosophy that does not require this assumption. The fewer assumptions the better right?
Click to expand...
Even the idealist assumes a reality. All the other entities he perceives are either physical, spiritual, or nonexistent hallucinations. Without an assumption of a self capable of having ideas and thought the idealist cannot tell if he is a first order extension of the consciousness of God or a second order creation of some artistic angel, or a hallucination created by a lower form of life in some strange dream.

For some reason idealist humans assume they are first order extensions of the consciousness of their God but there is no evidence of that. They assume an existence where everything must be, to some extent or other, a first level extension of their God. Even while they know they are capable of manufacturing worlds in their own dreams.

In other words the idealist is making plenty of unsupportable assumptions. It's hard to say who makes the fewest assumptions. Lg ignorantly says he makes none. Obviously idealists are no closer to a good articulation of the truth - even if, by some weird luck, they are found later to be an inch or two closer than materialists.
 
davidsmith73 said:
Sorry to be repeating myself, but for the concept of evidence to work we require the assumption that an external reality exists, so to claim that we have evidence for its existence is circular. Like you said, the existence of this reality can't be proven or not proven so I suggest we should try to do away with the concept and try to formulate a philosophy that does not require this assumption. The fewer assumptions the better right?
Click to expand...
Hmmmm..... If I assume that the external world is real then I can use that assumption to gain insight of at least what I perceive is the external world and improve my life and the lives of those around me. The assumption bears fruit whereas not making the assumption takes me no where. In fact the assumption is hard not to make. When I'm hungry I eat. It seems far more likely that I have to pretend that the external world is not real than to pretend that it is. Pain is consistent and many such pains are unrelenting and worsen over time if not addressed. So I have two choices. Assume the external world is real or assume that it is not. If I assume the latter I still am forced to live as though it is. I have no choice. Which is to say I have to pretend the keyboard I'm typing on right now doesn't exist and the desire to eat breakfast is not real if, that is, I accept gazerism or any other similar philosophies all the while typing and eating and carrying out all of those mundane chores that life forces on us. Hey, what am I going to believe;
  1. A philosophy that says we don't know if the external world is real but we are forced to live as thought it is.
  2. A philosophy that says the external world is not real but we are forced to live as though it is.
  3. That my senses don't deceive me and the real world is, by and large, as it seems and I don't have to pretend anything. I can live my life as I always have and always will regardless and there are no contradictions or silly games. By assuming that the external world is real I can improve my life and be happy. If I assume that I will "really" go to jail if I don't obey the law. That I will suffer if I don't take proactive stances in life. That I can't just curl up in bed and make the world go away when I so desperately want to do just that sometimes.[/list=1] You tell me, what assumption do you make? Yes, there is evidence that the external world is real. That evidence you can only ignore at your own discomfort or peril. Lock yourself in a room sometime without food, water or toilet for any length of time and then you tell me if there is evidence of an external world.
 
davidsmith73 said:
Sorry to be repeating myself, but for the concept of evidence to work we require the assumption that an external reality exists, so to claim that we have evidence for its existence is circular. Like you said, the existence of this reality can't be proven or not proven so I suggest we should try to do away with the concept and try to formulate a philosophy that does not require this assumption. The fewer assumptions the better right?
Click to expand...
No, the only assumption required is that other people than yourself have thoughts, emotions, - consciousness - that they consist of more than the outward sense data you have of them

If they don't have consciousness then you wrote the works of Bach, painted the Mona Lisa and wrote the poems of Keats - then promptly forgot how to do those things.

Now if that seems unlikely then you have to admit that other individuals have thoughts and emotions - that there are experiences besides just the ones you have. In fact nearly every Idealist philosopher has assumed that other people have thoughts and emotions. The fact that you are participating here indicates that you have already made this assumption.

Once you have accepted this then you have to accept that things that are not people have existence independent of people - everybody sees the Sun from a slightly different viewpoint but everybody sees the Sun.

So once you have accepted that people are distinct and perceived objects are distinct from people then you have to accept scientific data on the consistency of observations from distinct individuals.

In other words if you accept the Idealistic viewpoint that there is only consciousness then there is only your consciousness. But once you accept the very reasonable assumption that there are other consciousnesses then you have to accept that there is something else than consciousness

Then the whole Idealist edifice comes crashing down
 
What? Science is always running into brick walls. With the force of a wrecking ball. That's why they call them "breakthroughs."
 
c4ts said:
What? Science is always running into brick walls. With the force of a wrecking ball. That's why they call them "breakthroughs."
Click to expand...
Too bad Science is wholly contingent upon what we see in our minds. In which case how do we know that these breakthroughs are not just imaginary? ;) In other words, what's the point in imparting meaning to something that only "we" can see?
 
RandFan said:
Hmmmm..... If I assume that the external world is real then I can use that assumption to gain insight of at least what I perceive is the external world and improve my life and the lives of those around me. The assumption bears fruit whereas not making the assumption takes me no where. In fact the assumption is hard not to make. When I'm hungry I eat. It seems far more likely that I have to pretend that the external world is not real than to pretend that it is. Pain is consistent and many such pains are unrelenting and worsen over time if not addressed. So I have two choices. Assume the external world is real or assume that it is not.
Click to expand...
This is the purpose of religion, however (or philosophy), because it's still required that you make that assumption. Obviously, since we have to make that assumption, there must be more to it than what we believe.
 
Iacchus said:
This is the purpose of religion, however (or philosophy), because it's still required that you make that assumption. Obviously, since we have to make that assumption, there must be more to it than what we believe.
Click to expand...
What? I don't understand.
 
Iacchus said:
Originally posted by RandFan
So I have two choices. Assume the external world is real or assume that it is not.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I still don't see it. Please bear with me. How does such an assumption relate to religion? Why do you say "it is the purpose of religion"?

Are you talking about the classical "why am I here" question? If so I don't see why my question is relevant. Further, my question was not meant to draw any conclusions other than that of practical benifit to me. And at least two people have responded why an assumption of no self might be benificial so there is a potentially appreciable and practical benifit.

Assuming that it is the purpose of religion to answer said assumption then what is the answer and why should I accept it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom