The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by -1- » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:25 am

"...because you're unsure of what is the meaning of a term you use." You are referring to "doubt", and let it be for the record, that I did not use that term. But a misunderstanding and confusion arose because of the use of this term. Also, I gave a clear enough explanation why I wish to avoid, and why I have avoided using this term. Because its meaning is not straightforward, it is ambiguous. I even gave examples how it is ambiguous.

You later redefined "doubt" as "not being certain" but I shan't accept that explanation, because it would bastardize the meaning, and we can continue with the conversation without needing to bastardize the meaning of that word "doubt" and use different expressions.

Which you were, I thankfully acknowledge, willing to comply with. Thanks.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10664
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by Arising_uk » Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:23 am

monktastic wrote:... If you accept that you cannot disprove solipsism, ...
The fact of the language you are speaking disproves solipsism.
then can you reasonably believe that consciousness is a physical property?
So yes, in fact I cannot conceive of how it couldn't be.

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by Conde Lucanor » Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:55 am

-1- wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:25 am

You later redefined "doubt" as "not being certain" but I shan't accept that explanation, because it would bastardize the meaning...
What's the meaning, then?

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by Conde Lucanor » Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:19 am

-1- wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:17 am

There are two things I did not claim, and they are mistakenly attributed to what I said.

1. "a solipsist (John Doe) that believes that his mind is the only thing that can be proven to exist" This is not true. There are three qualifiers without which this statement is not something I would say. The one qualifier is that proven of reality; the second qualifier is that "that can be proven to exist to John Doe". The third qualifier is that it is not a belief; it is a statement of fact. The way you worded it was a general "only can be proven is John Does mind". This is what only can be proven of all things in reality to John Doe. Nothing else can be proven to John Doe that is part of reality, but his own mind.

2. John Doe will not prove to Mary Jane that John Doe's mind exists. That would be impossible. John Doe can try, and that is possible, but presenting the actual proof is not possible.
OK, then I will rephrase to see if that fits the intentions of your argument:

"So, what you're saying is that a solipsist (John Doe) that holds as a statement of fact that his mind is the only thing that to himself can be proven to exist, will try to prove to another mind (Mary Jane, who's existence he does not hold as a statement of fact) that John Doe's mind exists, even though he holds as a statement of fact that Mary Jane cannot prove to herself nothing but that only Mary Jane's mind exists? "
-1- wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:17 am
How will Mary Jane think of John Doe's mind, and how will John Doe think of Mary Jane's mind? "I think the other person exists. I can't prove this, but it seems reasonable to think this. There is a certain probability attached to the supposition that the other mind exists, but this certain probability is unknown for its magnitude. It could be anywhere on a continuous scale from zero to 100%. I am not sure where the certainty falls of the certainty of the supposition, that the other's mind exist."
This is what is called "doubt". One is not sure if it's one way or the other. Also synonym of "not holding as a statement of fact".

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by -1- » Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:36 am

Lucanor, if you want an answer to your question, read the words of the very post you answered. You can't ask questions on topics that have just been answered. You asked:
"John Doe... will try to prove to another mind (Mary Jane, who's existence he does not hold as a statement of fact) that John Doe's mind exists"

And in the previous paragraph which I wrote and which you quoted, it said, "2. John Doe will not prove to Mary Jane that John Doe's mind exists. That would be impossible. John Doe can try, and that is possible, but presenting the actual proof is not possible."

I don't know what you want me to do. Keep on repeating something until you somehow internalize it? Why keep on asking questions that have just been answered?

These two in the immediately preceding paragraph are genuine questions, not rhetorical ones. In my opinion a debate depends on people reading and understanding each other's scripts. If you read my script, you wouldn't, you couldn't have asked the question that had just been answered. If you don't read my script, then there is no point in writing anything. If you don't comprehend my simple, straightforwardly written text, then there is no point in continuing.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by -1- » Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:42 am

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:19 am
This is what is called "doubt". One is not sure if it's one way or the other. Also synonym of "not holding as a statement of fact".
You gave two synonyms for the meaning of "doubt" and they are contradictory. You've just shown how dubious the word "doubt" is. On one hand it means not being sure; on the other hand not holding as a statement of fact. These two things are not equivalent. But they are both truly two separate meanings of the word "doubt". That's why I don't deal with statements that use the word "doubt". These statements' meanings are ambivalent. This can be easily turned into a dilemma, and the person can get caught on the horns of the dilemma only by interpreting the meaning of "doubt" one way, at which point his or her opposing debate partner will hang him on the horn IMMEDIATELY.

You keep using doubt, no doubt; but I will not address issues that use a wording with the word "doubt" in it.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by -1- » Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:50 am

What can happen, though, and I think you are sort of searching for this but could not verbalize, is that John Doe, not being sure that Mary Jane's mind exist, can still show to Mary Jane, that to her, she or her mind is the only thing that can be proved to exist in the real world.

John Doe will never be able to prove his mind's existence to Mary Jane. Whether he tries or not. This is so, because the proof is reflective, it only can apply in full force to the self. But John Doe can show Mary Jane how she can prove the existence of her own mind. (If she needs proof of that, for instance, to satisfy gov requirements in immigration procedures and/or to obtain a work permit, created under the Trump administration.)

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by -1- » Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:03 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:23 am
1. The fact of the language you are speaking disproves solipsism.
2. So yes, in fact I cannot conceive of how [consciousness not physical] couldn't be.
1. This does not contradict solipsism. At all.
2. That is probably true, after all, you are able to tell us what you can conceive and what you can't. But consciousness without being a property of a physical body is possible.

Consciousness depends on sensations. Feeling sensations. The physical part of the self can only act in the confinement of the physical world. There is a bridge between the consciousness and the physical body which we don't understand, can't see or comprehend, or even theorize about (unless we build fantastic theories that force a conclusion, not reach one).

So... there is consciousness, which depends on its own existence to feel sensations... and there is the physical body which in and by itself can't feel or sense sensations, it can only respond to the laws of physics and the laws of the physical world.

This means that consciousness USES the physical body, and might even depend on it to get the sensations generated by physical forces of the physical world, but this does not exclude the fact that consciousness could get sensations via other means.

What these other means are, I can't speculate, all I can say is that they are not impossible.

Therefore the consciousness is conceivable to exist without its being a property of a physical body.

I am not saying consciousness NECESSARILY exists outside of a physical body; I am saying it is possible and conceivable for it to do so.

thought addict
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:47 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by thought addict » Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:08 am

Hi Rusty, if you're still here:
RustyBert wrote:
Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:51 pm
How about this: If mine is the only mind, then I must have brought myself into existence.
I don't agree with this, because additionally your mind could either be eternal so it just was always in existence or it could have been created by something that was not a mind.
If I have that ability, I should be able to control all aspects of my existence.
In the physical and biological world I can't think of any good examples of something that truly creates itself - even in computer software I can't. I think that would violate causality. Things can create copies of themselves or enhance themselves though. Anyway, it's quite possible for something to be able to create stuff at one time and then lose that power later. Think of a piece of machinery in a factory breaking, for example. So even if your mind could have created itself, that doesn't necessarily mean it can control all aspects of itself now.
But clearly I can't (because if I could I wouldn't be here typing on this stupid keyboard, I'd be in Hawaii). Therefore I'm not the only mind, and in fact it's entirely possible there was a time when there were no minds at all, and that some other process lead to our minds' creation.
I've personally been leaning towards the idea that consciousness is something so fundamental that it cannot be reduced into simpler parts which therefore implies it cannot be damaged or destroyed so perhaps that implies in turn that it cannot be created. This would be similar to other fundamental entities in physics - for example it's usually believed that energy can be neither created nor destroyed (although this can be converted into mass, but that's not destruction).

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10664
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by Arising_uk » Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:01 am

1. This does not contradict solipsism. At all. ...
How so? This language we are speaking is impossible without an other, that is, it is not possible for a solitary being to create such a language therefore there is at least one other than oneself, ergo no solipsism.
2. That is probably true, after all, you are able to tell us what you can conceive and what you can't. But consciousness without being a property of a physical body is possible. ...
Show me a consciousness without a body?
Consciousness depends on sensations. Feeling sensations. The physical part of the self can only act in the confinement of the physical world. There is a bridge between the consciousness and the physical body which we don't understand, can't see or comprehend, or even theorize about (unless we build fantastic theories that force a conclusion, not reach one). ...
Before I can really chat on this I need to understand what you mean by consciousness? Do you mean consciousness as in awareness of a world or self-consciousnesses as in aware that one is aware of a world.
So... there is consciousness, which depends on its own existence to feel sensations...
But it doesn't? It depends upon there being a body with senses in an external world.
and there is the physical body which in and by itself can't feel or sense sensations, it can only respond to the laws of physics and the laws of the physical world. ...
We think differently about such things as I think 'consciousness' is produced in certain bodies exactly because those bodies can sense.
This means that consciousness USES the physical body, and might even depend on it to get the sensations generated by physical forces of the physical world, but this does not exclude the fact that consciousness could get sensations via other means.
How?
What these other means are, I can't speculate, all I can say is that they are not impossible.
But you are speculating here?
Therefore the consciousness is conceivable to exist without its being a property of a physical body.
How?
I am not saying consciousness NECESSARILY exists outside of a physical body; I am saying it is possible and conceivable for it to do so.
How?
Last edited by Arising_uk on Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by Conde Lucanor » Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:36 am

-1- wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:36 am
Lucanor, if you want an answer to your question, read the words of the very post you answered. You can't ask questions on topics that have just been answered. You asked:
"John Doe... will try to prove to another mind (Mary Jane, who's existence he does not hold as a statement of fact) that John Doe's mind exists"

And in the previous paragraph which I wrote and which you quoted, it said, "2. John Doe will not prove to Mary Jane that John Doe's mind exists. That would be impossible. John Doe can try, and that is possible, but presenting the actual proof is not possible."

I don't know what you want me to do. Keep on repeating something until you somehow internalize it? Why keep on asking questions that have just been answered?

These two in the immediately preceding paragraph are genuine questions, not rhetorical ones. In my opinion a debate depends on people reading and understanding each other's scripts. If you read my script, you wouldn't, you couldn't have asked the question that had just been answered. If you don't read my script, then there is no point in writing anything. If you don't comprehend my simple, straightforwardly written text, then there is no point in continuing.
It's very simple: you said yourself (after I asked if my summary of your position was an accurate representation) that you had been misinterpreted and that it was your own fault. And then you explicitly requested this:

"instead of carrying on with correcting the corrections, please ask your question again."

And so I did. And I'll keep asking it until you decide that it does not misrepresent your position.

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by Conde Lucanor » Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:51 am

-1- wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:42 am
Conde Lucanor wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:19 am
This is what is called "doubt". One is not sure if it's one way or the other. Also synonym of "not holding as a statement of fact".
You gave two synonyms for the meaning of "doubt" and they are contradictory.
No, they are not and you must be dreaming if you think they are.
-1- wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:42 am
You've just shown how dubious the word "doubt" is. On one hand it means not being sure; on the other hand not holding as a statement of fact. These two things are not equivalent. But they are both truly two separate meanings of the word "doubt". That's why I don't deal with statements that use the word "doubt". These statements' meanings are ambivalent. This can be easily turned into a dilemma, and the person can get caught on the horns of the dilemma only by interpreting the meaning of "doubt" one way, at which point his or her opposing debate partner will hang him on the horn IMMEDIATELY.

You keep using doubt, no doubt; but I will not address issues that use a wording with the word "doubt" in it.
To leave your issues with the word "doubt" out of the problem, I chose to use "not certain" (which could also be replaced by "uncertain"), but then you rejected that term also with some weird justification about "bastardizing the meaning". What? Is it "not certain" an ambivalent term, too?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by -1- » Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:14 am

lucanor, you read my texts inprecisely.

It is getting tiresome to continue this. Very.

I am sorry, I'm begging out.

I stated my position often and consistently enough so that a five-year-old decorative globe made of lapis lazuri would understand it too. If after all this you still have questions, well, sorry, I can't help you.

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by Conde Lucanor » Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:01 am

-1- wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:14 am
lucanor, you read my texts inprecisely.
I guess it hasn't even crossed your mind that your texts are imprecise.
-1- wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:14 am
It is getting tiresome to continue this. Very.

I am sorry, I'm begging out.

I stated my position often and consistently enough so that a five-year-old decorative globe made of lapis lazuri would understand it too. If after all this you still have questions, well, sorry, I can't help you.
That's funny because I thought I had a lot of patience with your toss juggling.

Anyway, I take this response as a confirmation that you're willing to go on with the arguments as presented. If you wanted to change something, your chances just ended.

What you're saying is absurd and it does not account for solipsism. Why would the solipsist John Doe will try to prove to someone who's existence he does not hold as factual (thereby, possibly just an illusion of his own mind), something that by his own definition cannot be proven outside oneself (the existence of other minds)? By just trying, he would be refuting his own solipsism. What would be the criteria for him to determine that his attempt is failed or successful? The answer can only come from Mary Jane as part of reality, but John Doe cannot even trust his own mind that she and anything else exist, so no answer from Mary Jane will do any good for him, not even if he just makes the theoretical assumption that she exists.

Atla
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by Atla » Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:06 am

monktastic wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:09 pm
You cannot be sure -- even in principle -- that such a thing is happening anywhere else. Maybe there's consciousness elsewhere, but this consciousness is the only tool you'd have to verify it. Even if you saw the world through someone else's eyes, it would be happening "over here," so to speak. Similarly, nobody (and nothing) else can verify your consciousness.

Now, if you recognize that (a) there is this undoubtable sheer fact of consciousness (shorthand for "something seems to be happening"), and (b) it cannot be verified in anyone else, then it cannot be the case that consciousness is physical.
You can be sure that it's happening everywhere else too once you realize that physical and consciousness are one and the same thing. We just normally have sort of a split mind where we see two.

Your mistake is dualistic thinking, you assume that consciousness and physical are two categories that really exist.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests