 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 8449
Location: Omnipresent
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:25 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| ChrisHitchens wrote: |
Before you go to bed, do you read Nitsche and masturbate?   |
No, why would I? Nietzsche was not a nihilist, rather he was an existentialist/proto-existentialist. He saw nihilism as being the last men, as they lacked values and purpose, while a Nietzschean concept of man would have the will to face up to the death of God.
| Quote: |
I'm not sure I feel like wasting my time on the subject, because both solipsism and nihilism share the same fault in that, even if they are true, they aren't the basis of functional models of the world. So let's assume that you're right. So what? |
I think you feel like wasting your time on this topic because you are loudmouthed and arrogant, but that's just my guess.
Do people just search for a functional model for the world, or do they also search for an explanatory model as well? It seems as if they search for both, so to say "only functional models matter" seems silly and nihilistic in it's own way, given that people clearly search for meaning and understanding, not just predictions. After all "why?" is still a question and a common one at that.
If I am right, then many of our conceptions of human beings are wrong, and many starting points for understanding human beings or expressing ideas about human beings become more questionable. Both of these matter because people base their lives around these conceptions, and often use some starting points as rough sketches for their lives. For example, one legal scholar actually uses the lack of free will as his starting point to reject retributive theories of law, for the reason that he thinks that retributive theories are based upon an understanding of human beings that is questionable/false if free will does not exist. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1428002 And I use some of the same arguments that he uses.(in fact, I thought about citing his paper, but I thought it more confusing than useful, also if you don't see a download button on the page, try reloading that page)
Finally, I am neither promoting solipsism or nihilism. I said "This is much closer to straight-up nihilism.", but I did not say "This is straight-up nihilism.", and the difference is significant, because nothing I have said so far has denied reality, facts, or anything like that.
| Quote: |
How can you use reductionism and nihilism to form the basis of a usefull epistemology? The only thing that you've suggested so far that looks promising, is Dennett's view of identity as a narrative. But even this seems to lead to the conclusion that even though certian assumtions about the world are wrong, they are nonetheless, usefull. |
Reductionism is already the basis of useful epistemology, as the notion of Occam's razor is a powerful heuristic in philosophy and science. Dennett's view of identity as narrative is only useful if we reject more standard notions of identity.
Not only that, but if you accept "usefulness" as your sole criterion for what you consider "true", I think you've already got a significant issue. Why? Because then even God could be considered true by that count. When a believer prays, do you not think they feel more at peace? When a believer has some difficulties in their life, do you not think they are comforted by the presence of their God? And don't you think that religions can create communities of people who can interact with each other and extract some pleasure from each other's company? How can such a thing not be considered useful? And it is hard to argue that believers personally gain from giving up their beliefs in many cases, some people may feel better, but others will feel worse, so religion, even though it may be wrong, is an assumption that could still be considered useful. I mean, William James, the pragmatist philosopher who defined truth by usefulness is particularly noted for his defense of belief in God in the essay "Will to Believe". So in order to universally show that belief in God must be wrong, it seems you really have to stick to a standard different than just usefulness.
Finally, if we have a false substantive account, we can overlook more accurate but less narrated realities. This is part of the narrative fallacy. http://lesswrong.com/lw/14q/why_youre_stuck_in_a_narrative/ "Explanations bind facts together. They make them all the more easily remembered; they help them make more sense. Where this propensity can go wrong is when it increases our impression of understanding." A false notion of personhood and identity increases our impression of understanding, but it can diverge from what seems best. So, even if identity works, this does not mean that identity won't lead to theories that are less effective than we would likely run into if we reject the assumption. (which is sort of part of the John Humbach paper I already referenced)
Finally(again, just to protect against any attacks), no, I don't see the distraction of narrative and search for why as mutually exclusive. Focusing on one can surely be dangerous to the other, but both are deeply relevant to human interests.
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 20
Posts: 8369
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Letum wrote: | Nagasena, a Buddhist philosopher, whom the Greek philosophical world had contact with, refuted personhood as a class error.
he argues that in the same way that you can't touch the part of the city that is the "London" bit, you can't find the part of your self that is the "you" bit.
Of course, by this measure you can't find anything that is divisible into smaller parts. That trivialities his point a little, but not so much that is is completely lost.
| Quote: | King Milinda: How is your reverence known and what is your name, sir?
Nagasena: I am known as Nagasena, great king, and everyone calls me Nagasena. Even though my parents named me Nagasena, the word 'Nagasena' is just a name, a label, a series of sounds, a concept. It is just a name. There is no real person to be apprehended.
King: (addresses everyone) Listen up everyone, Nagasena tells me that he is not a real person. How can I agree to that? (to Nagasena) If no person can be apprehended, then who gives you alms? Who eats and takes medicine? Who meditates and guards morality? Who kills, steals, and rapes? If someone were to kill you, Nagasena, wouldn't that be murder? What is this 'Nagasena'? Are you the hairs on your head?
Nagasena: No, great king.
King: The hair on your body?
Nagasena: No, great king.
King: What about your muscles, bone, brain, organs, or any other part of your physical body? Is this Nagasena?
Nagasena: No, great king.
King: Perhaps it is this whole form, or a combination of this form, feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness?
Nagasena: No, great king.
King: Is it something outside of the combination of things?
Nagasena: No, great king.
King: (to everyone) I can discover no Nagasena at all. Just a sound, but who is the real Nagasena? Everyone, your reverence has told a lie. There is no Nagasena!
Nagasena: Your majesty, I notice that you have been brought up in great comfort. If you walked here under the noon sun, on the sharp rocks and burning sands, then your feet would be hurt and you would be tired. So how did you come, on foot or on a horse?
King: I came on a chariot.
Nagasena: If you came on a chariot, please explain what a chariot is. Is the pole the chariot?
King: No, reverend sir.
Nagasena: Is it the wheels, or the frame, or the yoke, or any of the parts?
King: No, reverend sir.
Nagasena: Is it the combination of the parts? If we laid out the wheels and the frame and the yoke and all the parts, would that be a chariot?
King: No, reverend sir.
Nagasena: Then is it outside of this combination of parts?
King: No, reverend sir.
Nagasena: Then, ask as I do, I can't discover a chariot. Chariot seems to be just a mere sound. Where is this chariot? Your majesty has told a lie!
Greeks: (applaud) How will you get out of this, your Majesty?
King: Nagasena, I have not told a lie. It is in the dependency and interworking of all the parts that you have a chariot. A pile of parts isn't enough. It is when they all work together that you have this conceptual term, sound, and name of a chariot.
Nagasena: Your majesty is exactly right about the chariot. It is just so with me. Nagasena is the working of all the parts of the body and the five skandhas that make me. But in ultimate reality, however, the person still isn't caught.
King: Well played sir. Well played. |
|
What a load of crap. By this argument, anything with emergent properties does not exist. So apparently, water does not exist.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
pakled
"Bless his Heart"
Joined: Nov 13, 2007
Age: 52
Posts: 6741
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am not a person, I am a number - number 6...
_________________
anahl nathrak, uth vas bethude, doth yel dyenvey... |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 8449
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: |
What a load of crap. By this argument, anything with emergent properties does not exist. So apparently, water does not exist. |
Water doesn't exist. Atoms also don't exist. Nothing exists but matter. And the divisions in matter(such as atoms, molecules, people, chariots, etc) are man-made. I don't see the inconsistency in such a metaphysical position, so where does the "load of crap" part come in?
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
greenblue
¸.·´´¯`··.¸.·´
Joined: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: 9014
Location: Home
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Orwell wrote: |
What a load of crap. By this argument, anything with emergent properties does not exist. So apparently, water does not exist. |
Water doesn't exist. Atoms also don't exist. Nothing exists but matter. And the divisions in matter(such as atoms, molecules, people, chariots, etc) are man-made. |
I believe there is a distinction between atoms-molecules and people, which the latter can be said to be physical divisions of physical things with phyisical properties while the former an immaterial concept, and I don't see how atoms and molecules cannot possibly exist and be man-made concepts only, unless we are denying physics and our interpretation of reality as a whole, from a strong philosophical skeptic or nihilist standpoint, it may seem. (I do know that labels and concepts such as "atoms", "molecules", "matter", "laws" are human constructs which are part of our language system that we use to make abstractions of our interpretation of reality but they seem close enough to actually deny them, funny thing, sometimes with an apparent level of certainty and I tend to see a problem there)
| Quote: | | I don't see the inconsistency in such a metaphysical position, so where does the "load of crap" part come in? |
well, I really don't know where is that, but there is the issue that "crap" may still be "crap" regardless if there is consistency of the propositions and analysis in favor of that "crap", because consistency does not seem to necessarily equals truth or factual, it just seems to mean that an idea is consistent and I believe that a consistent idea can still be "crap".
Regarding the issue of concepts such as people (personhood) and similar, there is also the issue of the existence of more than just one standpoint in philosophy to that issue and I currently tend to see a problem when it comes to favor a prefered one among several.
_________________
"I realized, nothing really exists". |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 20
Posts: 8369
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Orwell wrote: |
What a load of crap. By this argument, anything with emergent properties does not exist. So apparently, water does not exist. |
Water doesn't exist. Atoms also don't exist. Nothing exists but matter. And the divisions in matter(such as atoms, molecules, people, chariots, etc) are man-made. I don't see the inconsistency in such a metaphysical position, so where does the "load of crap" part come in? |
So it's consistent crap. It's still crap. An obviously absurd position can be rejected as such. A carbon atom is clearly a distinct entity that is different from its protons, neutrons, and electrons. Benzene rings and buckyballs are also clear, well-defined entities that are quite plainly different from carbon atoms. All you've shown in this thread is that a handful of rare cases can lead to ambiguities in one of our least specific definitions. To go from this to "Nothing exists but matter" would be like criticizing Cantor's notion of sets (his definition led to contradictions) and then asserting that sets do not exist, and further, numbers do not exist.
I'm often accused of not seeing the forest for the trees. Sometimes I feel like I'm even missing the trees for the leaves. You've gone down to subatomic particles and failed to see a chlorophyll molecule.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
PhD in Science Fiction
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 24
Posts: 13403
Location: The edge of the universe.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Orwell wrote: |
What a load of crap. By this argument, anything with emergent properties does not exist. So apparently, water does not exist. |
Water doesn't exist. Atoms also don't exist. Nothing exists but matter. And the divisions in matter(such as atoms, molecules, people, chariots, etc) are man-made. I don't see the inconsistency in such a metaphysical position, so where does the "load of crap" part come in? |
So it's consistent crap. It's still crap. An obviously absurd position can be rejected as such. A carbon atom is clearly a distinct entity that is different from its protons, neutrons, and electrons. Benzene rings and buckyballs are also clear, well-defined entities that are quite plainly different from carbon atoms. All you've shown in this thread is that a handful of rare cases can lead to ambiguities in one of our least specific definitions. To go from this to "Nothing exists but matter" would be like criticizing Cantor's notion of sets (his definition led to contradictions) and then asserting that sets do not exist, and further, numbers do not exist.
I'm often accused of not seeing the forest for the trees. Sometimes I feel like I'm even missing the trees for the leaves. You've gone down to subatomic particles and failed to see a chlorophyll molecule. |
Don't worry 'bout that! Come to Quark's! We have lot's of equipment for imaging, and even holodecks! Come to Quark's!
_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/Iamnotaparakeet
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/numerarius5988am
http://www.sinsofasolarempire.com/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 8449
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| greenblue wrote: |
I believe there is a distinction between atoms-molecules and people, which the latter can be said to be physical divisions of physical things with phyisical properties while the former an immaterial concept, and I don't see how atoms and molecules cannot possibly exist and be man-made concepts only, unless we are denying physics and our interpretation of reality as a whole, from a strong philosophical skeptic or nihilist standpoint, it may seem. (I do know that labels and concepts such as "atoms", "molecules", "matter", "laws" are human constructs which are part of our language system that we use to make abstractions of our interpretation of reality but they seem close enough to actually deny them, funny thing, sometimes with an apparent level of certainty and I tend to see a problem there) |
Well, the issue is deciding which lines to divide by and which lines are essential. I thought about changing my post after the fact to address how atoms which are less variant than other physical items could exist while bigger things wouldn't, but since I was tired, I decided not to.
| Quote: |
well, I really don't know where is that, but there is the issue that "crap" may still be "crap" regardless if there is consistency of the propositions and analysis in favor of that "crap", because consistency does not seem to necessarily equals truth or factual, it just seems to mean that an idea is consistent and I believe that a consistent idea can still be "crap". |
You are right, something can be crap regardless of consistency issues, but consistency issues are a major contributor to crappiness.
| Orwell wrote: | | Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Orwell wrote: |
What a load of crap. By this argument, anything with emergent properties does not exist. So apparently, water does not exist. |
Water doesn't exist. Atoms also don't exist. Nothing exists but matter. And the divisions in matter(such as atoms, molecules, people, chariots, etc) are man-made. I don't see the inconsistency in such a metaphysical position, so where does the "load of crap" part come in? |
So it's consistent crap. It's still crap. An obviously absurd position can be rejected as such. A carbon atom is clearly a distinct entity that is different from its protons, neutrons, and electrons. Benzene rings and buckyballs are also clear, well-defined entities that are quite plainly different from carbon atoms. All you've shown in this thread is that a handful of rare cases can lead to ambiguities in one of our least specific definitions. To go from this to "Nothing exists but matter" would be like criticizing Cantor's notion of sets (his definition led to contradictions) and then asserting that sets do not exist, and further, numbers do not exist.
I'm often accused of not seeing the forest for the trees. Sometimes I feel like I'm even missing the trees for the leaves. You've gone down to subatomic particles and failed to see a chlorophyll molecule. |
Ok, yes, many atoms and molecules can actually be defined in a mathematical manner, which reduces any sort of ambiguities, thus there is less of an issue regarding an essence to their existence. Still, I would argue that the divisions are arbitrary, I mean, can you define an atom or element without appealing to pre-existing linguistic definitions? That seems difficult, but also necessary in order to show that atoms aren't a figure in narrative, but rather can analytically exist. I mean, we would have to define the nature of all of the component thing-stuffs, and then define all of this in relationship to other bundles of thing-stuff, and even then I doubt we would have captured the essence, as even if we have the cleanest and clearest definition of an atom, or proton, or electron, is something deeply like an atom, or proton, or electron logically possible while differing with that definition? Unless we reduce all judgments to analytical judgments, there is ground to deny the existence of any particular class of things, as only analytical judgments are definite to have essence, but only class judgments match our language. Thus, our language does not match an external reality, thus meaning that our names and labels aren't for things that objectively exist, but rather things that we find categorizing as separate to be useful.
I don't think that this is a matter of "rare cases" though, given that it seems to apply to people, carriages, and the entire city of London. I do think the debate has gone past the original argument to some extent, which was specific to people, and wasn't as focused upon nominalism, however, nothing wrong with the direction it went.
Well, of course, I failed to see a chlorophyll molecule. Those don't exist. There is just thing-stuff, and nothing that says that one bundle of thing stuff is truly different than another bundle. (so, basically nominalist monism, words have no objective meaning, and there is only one substance that reality is made of)
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
PhD in Science Fiction
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 24
Posts: 13403
Location: The edge of the universe.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 8449
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iamnotaparakeet wrote: | | In terms of the act of appellation and categorization, would taxonomy hold any bearing to this discussion? |
It could, the real issue is whether language represents human divisions, or actual divisions in reality. If taxonomy can give some insight into the nature of our language, particularly nouns or descriptions, then it can hold some bearing.
Also Orwell, there is not a single red object in existence, only things that reflect or give off electromagnetic waves under certain circumstances that we later label red upon perceiving them. Just a little FYI. 
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Paddy789
Sea Gull
Joined: Aug 13, 2008
Posts: 245
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you cannot prove it, you cannot say it as truth. You may think everything is only a figment of your imagination, but how do you 100% exactly know it is? If people don't exist, then how do you exist? So many questions followed by many vague answers that ultimately explain nothing.
If you cannot prove people exist, you also cannot prove they don't exist. Reality itself is far too unimaginably weird for us humans to even begin to understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 20
Posts: 8369
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Thus, our language does not match an external reality, thus meaning that our names and labels aren't for things that objectively exist, but rather things that we find categorizing as separate to be useful. |
Our language attempts to approximate an external reality. It does not achieve a perfect matching, but that is still not sufficient to conclude trees do not exist.
| Quote: | | I don't think that this is a matter of "rare cases" though, given that it seems to apply to people, carriages, and the entire city of London. I do think the debate has gone past the original argument to some extent, which was specific to people, and wasn't as focused upon nominalism, however, nothing wrong with the direction it went. |
Your "people do not exist" argument rested on cases that are either rare enough to be medical curiosities (chimeras) or just outlandish hypotheticals (brain in a jar). Saying, for example, that London does not exist just seems like an abuse of language more than anything else to me.
[quote]Well, of course, I failed to see a chlorophyll molecule. Those don't exist. There is just thing-stuff, and nothing that says that one bundle of thing stuff is truly different than another bundle.[quote]
Then chloroplasts are the same as mitochondria? No, this is clearly false. There are both qualitative and quantitative differences that allow us to unambiguously separate those into two distinct categories. Hence they are not the same thing.
| Quote: | | (so, basically nominalist monism, words have no objective meaning, and there is only one substance that reality is made of) |
Words are ultimately arbitrary, but that is irrelevant. As long as words have clearly-defined, agreed-upon meanings, there is no problem.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Letum
Deinonychus
Joined: Jan 21, 2007
Age: 22
Posts: 320
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | Letum wrote: | Nagasena, a Buddhist philosopher, whom the Greek philosophical world had contact with, refuted personhood as a class error.
he argues that in the same way that you can't touch the part of the city that is the "London" bit, you can't find the part of your self that is the "you" bit.
Of course, by this measure you can't find anything that is divisible into smaller parts. That trivialities his point a little, but not so much that is is completely lost.
|
What a load of crap. By this argument, anything with emergent properties does not exist. So apparently, water does not exist. |
Water does not exist in the sense that it is just a name for an arrangement of atoms and not a physical object.
No one of the atoms atoms is 'water' and all the atoms spread out individual are not 'water'.
Water is the name for the atoms together in a specific arrangement at specific temperatures.
Because arrangement, temperature etc. are not physical objects, but are essential for something to be 'water', 'water can not possibly be a physical object.
If you only wish to believe in a physical world, then 'water', 'chariots' and 'persons' are not part of it. They are just names for arrangements.
There is no doubt that arrangements exist, but it is only human choice which arrangements we chose to name and define as separate from other arrangements.
In a universe free from human interpretation, matter still exists, but atoms, chariots and other arrangements we have decided to define, do not.
There is no objective reason to call any particular arrangement a 'person'.
Your can if you want, but that would be arbitrary and meaningless from an objective point of view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 8449
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: |
Our language attempts to approximate an external reality. It does not achieve a perfect matching, but that is still not sufficient to conclude trees do not exist. |
Well, trees don't exist. Trees are at best a model for conceptual data, but a model for conceptual data doesn't exist in reality, but rather is subjective. Trees subjectively exist. (I think there is less disagreement here than you think there is)
| Quote: |
Your "people do not exist" argument rested on cases that are either rare enough to be medical curiosities (chimeras) or just outlandish hypotheticals (brain in a jar). Saying, for example, that London does not exist just seems like an abuse of language more than anything else to me. |
Actually, my "people do not exist" argument rested upon a definition of personhood that I gave that I considered to capture the essence of personhood, and arguing that people miss the mark on both essential qualities.
My rebuttal to your definition rested on medical curiosities and hypotheticals, but the hypotheticals weren't small things. Brain death and missing body parts aren't so extremely uncommon that they should be ignored. And chimeras alone require a rejection of the core of your foundations.
That being said, I just think your definition of personhood completely misses the point, as "person" is not necessarily the same as "human", as I may call a Terry Shiavo human, but she wasn't a person as persons have more activity. Not only that, but in science fiction, we see many beings that are in a sense "persons" but they aren't human. This might be silly, but it seems somewhat relevant, particularly if we were thinking about the possibility of a working AI, or a genetically engineered being, hurdles we haven't reached yet, but not irrelevant for human thought.
Well, I think part of the issue between us is terminology, as I would also say "London is a socio-cultural representation to help us understand the existence of a grouping of humans in a certain basic geographic location" while also saying "London does not exist". And what I mean when I say "London does not exist" is that London lacks an objective existence. Not that when we say "London" we aren't referring to anything.
| Quote: |
Then chloroplasts are the same as mitochondria? No, this is clearly false. There are both qualitative and quantitative differences that allow us to unambiguously separate those into two distinct categories. Hence they are not the same thing. |
Well, chloroplasts and mitochondria are both made out of stuff. Qualitative and quantitative differences don't exist without you presupposing that they exist, and your presupposition isn't a matter of reality, but rather a matter of mental categorization.
| Quote: |
Words are ultimately arbitrary, but that is irrelevant. As long as words have clearly-defined, agreed-upon meanings, there is no problem. |
Well, it actually does matter, because knowing how the words relate to their reality will also impact how we relate to the words. If words are arbitrary human inventions, then many of the uses of words and intuitions in words might also be dismissed as arbitrary. If words all have substantive ties to reality, then piling on words will really matter.
In any case, I think Letum is a *lot* more on topic and better at conveying these ideas than I am.
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 8449
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Paddy789 wrote: | If you cannot prove it, you cannot say it as truth. You may think everything is only a figment of your imagination, but how do you 100% exactly know it is? If people don't exist, then how do you exist? So many questions followed by many vague answers that ultimately explain nothing.
If you cannot prove people exist, you also cannot prove they don't exist. Reality itself is far too unimaginably weird for us humans to even begin to understand. |
Well, the starting point was a conception of personhood that I considered to validly get the essence of what we mean when we say "person", then I argued that this didn't exist.
Who says that I am a person? By my argument, I also am not a person. I am a human, but I lack the qualities that are necessary to give a being a special status of "personhood".
Well, the issue isn't an absolute proof but rather proof that nobody else at this point could identify a person. To a certain extent, I began on this road because of iamnotaparakeet's threat "Parakeets do not exist", which was attacking extreme skepticism.
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
