The Baseball Bat Test

[Yahzi]

Garret asked me to discuss the Baseball Bat Test, so... here it is.

Generally it is deployed against a Matrix-type scenario, where the claim is that reality is an illusion or unknowable or some other way of saying "not real."

The Yahzi patented Baseball Bat Test (TM):

Step 1. Obtain a baseball bat.

Step 2. Fix your mind firmly on the notion that reality is just an illusion.

Step 3. Strike yourself in the head with the bat until step 2 is no longer possible.

Now, the thing that makes the YPBBT funny is that it cannot fail. There are only two possible outcomes:

A. Your opponent becomes convinced of his silliness and stops arguing with you.

B. Your opponent dies and stops arguing with you.

In either case, you win the debate! :D

Of course, I also mean to imply a more significant statement about reality, vis-a-vie the inescapable nature of physical law. Whether imaginary or not hardly matters if the outcome is the same in both cases. Which leads us to my next favorite saying:

"If the difference between the existence of a thing and its non-existence is indistinguishable, then we say that thing does not exist. This is called Reason."

So even if we are just "brains in vats," if the laws that control are model are literally inescapable, then there is no real difference between reality and the vat. And if there is no difference... it's a meaningless argument. However, some people like to make meaningless arguments. Which leads us right back to the bat...

[Jobar]

I've always considered solipsism a language problem- our words aren't able to unerringly describe reality.

It's when you approach it wordlessly- for example, with a baseball bat- that reality can no longer be argued.

[Redshirt]

Welcome to SC, Yahzi. I seem to remember this argument being used in debates with postmodernists.

[munnki]

Now, the thing that makes the YPBBT funny is that it cannot fail. There are only two possible outcomes:

A. Your opponent becomes convinced of his silliness and stops arguing with you.

B. Your opponent dies and stops arguing with you.

Hang on... I hate to get all gay and postmodern n'shiznit...

but what about option c) your opponent becomes mentally retarded and ends up on life support (in Jeb Bush's Florida)

What does that outcome prove?

[Sam Hunter]

Or,

D. Your opponent says "Sod this!" and decides to test out reality on your head instead.

[DMB]

Ah, but what is the reality? If, say, opponent tries baseball bat once and gets a headache, how does he distinguish in this situation between the possibilities:
There is a physical world and he has just made a real, damaging physical impact on his real physical head.
The simulator of which he is part is programmed to simulate a headache.


In case 2 it could be programmed to produce progressive deterioraton in performance as a result of further blows.

[Garrett]

Exactly, Diana. The Matrix inhabitants think they live in reality because baseball bat tests tell them so.

[Garrett]

Btw, I coined Yahzi's exalted phrase. Or maybe that happened in an alternate reality.

[Garrett]

Now, the thing that makes the YPBBT funny is that it cannot fail. There are only two possible outcomes:

A. Your opponent becomes convinced of his silliness and stops arguing with you.

B. Your opponent dies and stops arguing with you.

In either case, you win the debate! :D
And what would happen in the Matrix? The same two possibilities. :rolleyes:

[munnki]

How did postmodernism get to be equated with 'reality, as such, doesn't exist'-ism?

:p

What's all this anger with Pomo... I think it's based on Dawkins false rant on his misunderstanding of relativism... Relativism was never - 'all ways are valid' - that is, when it wasn't in the hands of idiots. It was, however, by its best authers - an attempt to convey the complexity or problematic nature of some absolutes. In good hands, it was way more subtle than 'well, Moslems, do X - who are we to say...' that's foolishness not relativism or pomo'ism....

[Febble]

Now, the thing that makes the YPBBT funny is that it cannot fail. There are only two possible outcomes:

A. Your opponent becomes convinced of his silliness and stops arguing with you.

B. Your opponent dies and stops arguing with you.

In either case, you win the debate! :D
And what would happen in the Matrix? The same two possibilities. :rolleyes:

Unless There Is No Bat.

[Jobar]

It all boils down to, is there such a thing as a simulation of reality which cannot be told from reality?

I think the answer must be the same as to the question, is there a creator of reality which cannot be detected from within reality?

:Winace:

[Worldtraveller]

It all boils down to, is there such a thing as a simulation of reality which cannot be told from reality?

I think the answer must be the same as to the question, is there a creator of reality which cannot be detected from within reality?

:Winace:
Uh oh...strap yourselves in for a Garrett lecture on Occam....

[lpetrich]

Ah, but what is the reality? (physical vs. simulation...)
True, but both cases are cases of reality that is external to us.

There is another case that I've thought of, that that baseball bat and its effects are hallucinations that seem very much like some external reality, whether physical or simulation.

But since we cannot control such hallucinations, they are effectively external to one's consciousness.

[JamesBannon]

If the baseball bat is part of the simulation, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference. It really isn't a counter-example, even though it is an argument I have used many times myself. The only way we get to reality is by observation, trial-end-error and other forms of experiment. We don't really have any way of knowing whether or not our observations and experiments are being continuously manipulated by an evil demon (Descartes Meditations not withstanding).

[Sam Hunter]

It all boils down to, is there such a thing as a simulation of reality which cannot be told from reality?

I think the answer must be the same as to the question, is there a creator of reality which cannot be detected from within reality?

:Winace:
Uh oh...strap yourselves in for a Garrett lecture on Occam....

Oooo... I haven't come across one of those. Is it something to look forward to?

[Yahzi]

It all boils down to, is there such a thing as a simulation of reality which cannot be told from reality?
The more important point is, who cares?

If a simulation of reality cannot be distinguished from reality, then it is the same thing. The entire concept of "distinguishable" means "different;" and if there are no differences that anyone could ever practically or theoretically detect in any way, then there are no differences.

Anybody who argues with this is opening themselves to a P-Zombie attack. And boy, you'll wish you had a baseball bat then! :D

If, say, opponent tries baseball bat once and gets a headache, how does he distinguish in this situation between the possibilities:
As long as he stops arguing to go get some aspirin... who cares? He stopped arguing!

but what about option c) your opponent becomes mentally retarded and ends up on life support (in Jeb Bush's Florida)
But he's not arguing with you anymore. So you win. :)

[Jobar]

It all boils down to, is there such a thing as a simulation of reality which cannot be told from reality?
The more important point is, who cares?

If a simulation of reality cannot be distinguished from reality, then it is the same thing. The entire concept of "distinguishable" means "different;" and if there are no differences that anyone could ever practically or theoretically detect in any way, then there are no differences.

I'm not arguing. :) I think that's another way of saying this is all a language problem, as I mentioned in the second post.

On the subject of Occam's Razor- while I agree it's not a rule of logic, it's a very good rule for testing the connection of some logical proposition to reality. Remember that logic is language-centric, to coin a phrase. You can make all sorts of logical statements which have nothing to do with reality.

In fact, it's rather like the Baseball Bat Test in that.

[Yahzi]

I'm not arguing. :) I think that's another way of saying this is all a language problem,
Ya, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Our symbol-processing brains allow us to process strings of symbols that don't actually have any underlying meaning.

Occam's Razor
I think of it as a central tenet of logic. You need that and the three laws to get anywhere. Guess I'll have to wait and see how Garret plays that out. :)

[Febble]

The truth is that we ARE brains-in-vats.

That's what reality is.

[Oolon Colluphid]

If you can't tell the difference between 'reality' and a simulation, why does it matter which it is?

I'd have thought that if the simulation were perfect in every detail, then its contents are reality, and what -- if anything -- lays outside the simulation is both inaccessible and irrelevant.

ETA: Or in other words, what Febble said. We run our own Matrixes (would a movie plural be Matrices?) in our heads.

[Febble]

...would a movie plural be Matrices?

Not according to Pinker.

[Febble]

The truth is that we ARE brains-in-vats.

That's what reality is.

Or possibly vats-in-brains.

[Oolon Colluphid]

"Braaaaainnnnzzzz..."

[JamesBannon]

If you can't tell the difference between 'reality' and a simulation, why does it matter which it is?

I'd have thought that if the simulation were perfect in every detail, then its contents are reality, and what -- if anything -- lays outside the simulation is both inaccessible and irrelevant.

ETA: Or in other words, what Febble said. We run our own Matrixes (would a movie plural be Matrices?) in our heads.

It doesn't. For all we know, the universe could have been created last Thursday with everything in place, or from moment to moment for that matter. However, like all unfalsifiable hypotheses, it adds nothing to the existing body of knowledge about the world we inhabit, so it might as well be rejected.

[Oolon Colluphid]

True, Jim. But you're talking science there. Philosophy isn't about "the existing body of knowledge about the world". "Might as well reject it" isn't good enough for philosophers, who don't reject an idea merely because it's pointless. They prefer questions like "why is there tea?" and "does tea really exist?" and "is it really tea if the water's not been poured into the pot yet?"

The rest of us just put the kettle on and have a cuppa.

:D

[JamesBannon]

:D True enough.

[Febble]

If you can't tell the difference between 'reality' and a simulation, why does it matter which it is?

I'd have thought that if the simulation were perfect in every detail, then its contents are reality, and what -- if anything -- lays outside the simulation is both inaccessible and irrelevant.

ETA: Or in other words, what Febble said. We run our own Matrixes (would a movie plural be Matrices?) in our heads.

It doesn't. For all we know, the universe could have been created last Thursday with everything in place, or from moment to moment for that matter. However, like all unfalsifiable hypotheses, it adds nothing to the existing body of knowledge about the world we inhabit, so it might as well be rejected.

From our point of view, the universe is created and recreated from moment to moment. All we have are models, and they are in the vat in our heads.

[munnki]

I like to entertain the idea that this world is actually based on one of Hunter S Thompsons 'Fear and Loathing' binge sessions... complete with [non 'Fifth Avenue']cocaine, LSD, ludes, marijuana and peyote... and that this explains fully the rather manic narrative of evolution and weird coincidences within the laws of physics... it also explains aardvarks and French people, rather well, methinks...

:p

[Oolon Colluphid]

From our point of view, the universe is created and recreated from moment to moment.
By a spot of synchronicity, a point that Terry Pratchett was making to me this very lunchtime as I read Thief of Time (with much fun being had with the profundities of "there's no time like the present" and "I wasn't born yesterday").

But then as we know, time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so.

[Febble]

On the contrary, lunchtime is the only reality.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Seems to me that this baseball bat test is just a variation on Dr Johnson's (iirc) refutation of solipsism: "I refute it thus!" [kicks large rock]

It's a knock-down refutation for everyone except philosophers.

ETA: Yes it was Johnson: www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html

[Yahzi]

Seems to me that this baseball bat test is just a variation on Dr Johnson's (iirc) refutation of solipsism: "I refute it thus!" [kicks large rock]
Yes, I usually cite Johnson when I bring it up. To be honest it's been so long since I talked about the test that I forgot to.

Of course, my version is better, because in Johnson's version, you wind up with a sore foot, but in mine, it's the other guy that winds up sore. :D

isn't good enough for philosophers, who don't reject an idea merely because it's pointless
Not all philosophers are addicted to empty arguments/trying to earn tenure. Some of us have day jobs. :D

[Daydream]

This is hilarious. I wonder what New Agers would say to the baseball bat test!

[Jobar]

I like to entertain the idea that this world is actually based on one of Hunter S Thompsons 'Fear and Loathing' binge sessions... complete with [non 'Fifth Avenue']cocaine, LSD, ludes, marijuana and peyote... and that this explains fully the rather manic narrative of evolution and weird coincidences within the laws of physics... it also explains aardvarks and French people, rather well, methinks...

:p

[rude, crude, and socially unacceptable] So, when he blew his brains out, do you refer to this as the Big Bang? [/r,c,&su]

[Garrett]

Seems to me that this baseball bat test is just a variation on Dr Johnson's (iirc) refutation of solipsism: "I refute it thus!" [kicks large rock]

It's a knock-down refutation for everyone except philosophers.

Yes! It's not possible your sensations aren't what they seem, because
they seem to be the way they seem!

[Garrett]

It all boils down to, is there such a thing as a simulation of reality which cannot be told from reality?

I think the answer must be the same as to the question, is there a creator of reality which cannot be detected from within reality?

Then the answer is possibly.

Are you one of those who thinks they see the world as it actually is? Then why don't you see in all spectrums? Why does matter seem solid when it is porous?

Aw, never mind. Keep your illusions.

[Garrett]

How did postmodernism get to be equated with 'reality, as such, doesn't exist'-ism?

You are usually pretty sharp. But who said anything like what your post suggests?

[Febble]

It all boils down to, is there such a thing as a simulation of reality which cannot be told from reality?

I think the answer must be the same as to the question, is there a creator of reality which cannot be detected from within reality?

Then the answer is possibly.

Are you one of those who thinks they see the world as it actually is?

What do you mean by this question, Garrett?

Then why don't you see in all spectrums? Why does matter seem solid when it is porous?

Because that is how we model it, usually, given sensory data. With different data, we model it differently (e.g. "porous"). But there are yet more possible models, e.g. "strings"; "probabilities". All we have are models - and predictions.

Aw, never mind. Keep your illusions.

So what is not illusory?

[munnki]

How did postmodernism get to be equated with 'reality, as such, doesn't exist'-ism?

You are usually pretty sharp. But who said anything like what your post suggests?

No-one... I was ranting... I'll do that from time to time....

:)

[munnki]

I like to entertain the idea that this world is actually based on one of Hunter S Thompsons 'Fear and Loathing' binge sessions... complete with [non 'Fifth Avenue']cocaine, LSD, ludes, marijuana and peyote... and that this explains fully the rather manic narrative of evolution and weird coincidences within the laws of physics... it also explains aardvarks and French people, rather well, methinks...

:p

[rude, crude, and socially unacceptable] So, when he blew his brains out, do you refer to this as the Big Bang? [/r,c,&su]

No... I think that's the bit where our sun goes nova... [also rude, crude, and socially unacceptable]

[Yahzi]

Yes! It's not possible your sensations aren't what they seem, because they seem to be the way they seem!
That's almost correct.

Our sensations may not be what they seem. However, they do seem to be what they seem. And since all we can ever have is the seeming, then we need not doubt that we things seem as they seem.

Of course I am quoting Descartes here: the one thing he could not doubt was that he was doubting, because to be doubting, one must be doubting.

[HinduWoman]

If the simulation is advanced enough, then we would never be able to falsify 'we are living in Matrix' theory.

So who cares?

But Yahzi, if you hit the other party he will sue you for everything you have got following his programming and then life in the simulation will be pretty miserable for you. ;)

[Yahzi]

But Yahzi, if you hit the other party he will sue you for everything you have got following his programming and then life in the simulation will be pretty miserable for you. ;)
Right, which is why the Baseball bat test only works if they use the bat on themselves.

You know the old saying - some people never learn until they do it themselves. :D

[Celsus]

The Baseball Bat Test would appear to fail against the maxim that violence is the recourse of the witless.

[Yahzi]

The Baseball Bat Test would appear to fail against the maxim that violence is the recourse of the witless.
Only if you don't read it carefully enough to recognize that there is no violence involved.

Unless you want to argue that a person applying force to themselves is violence. In which case, yes, that person is so witless their only recourse is to apply violence to themselves.

[Celsus]

The Baseball Bat Test would appear to fail against the maxim that violence is the recourse of the witless.
Only if you don't read it carefully enough to recognize that there is no violence involved.

Unless you want to argue that a person applying force to themselves is violence. In which case, yes, that person is so witless their only recourse is to apply violence to themselves.
Violence isn't always physical. Bullying, for example, is a form of violence. So are threats and other types of non-physical coercion.

Daring someone to beat themselves over the head with a baseball bat would be a cynical way to force the other side to concede a point that isn't what the mind-matter (never mind the "Matrix"-style reality) debate actually is about - hence winning without actually having debated the point.

[Yahzi]

Violence isn't always physical. Bullying, for example, is a form of violence. So are threats and other types of non-physical coercion.
Many people define disagreeing with them as bullying. They define being exposed to facts or ideas as an unwarranted invasion of their privacy.

As Hobbes the tiger asked, "When did ignorance become a right?"

Daring someone to beat themselves over the head with a baseball bat would be a cynical way to force the other side to concede a point that isn't what the mind-matter (never mind the "Matrix"-style reality) debate actually is about - hence winning without actually having debated the point.
Except that it is the point.

People who are having a Matrix-style argument with you are bullshitting. We know they are bullshitting because they do no believe what they are saying. We know they don't believe it because they are saying anything at all. It's like Russell's solipsist being surprised that there weren't more solipsists.

In other words, people who use reality (such as a conversation) to assert that reality isn't real are just playing a language game. If they truly believed that reality wasn't real, they would behave rather differently. The Baseball Bat test exposes that: it brings the conversation back to the brute fact that even the most ardent evangelist for unreality does not, even for a second, actually doubt reality.

It is perfectly possible to have an honest conversation about mind-matter. Scientists and psychologists do it all the time. However, their conversations are predicated on the supremacy of observation. All statements are proved or disproved by observing reality. What the YPBBT does is restore observation to its rightful place in the conversation.

[Quizalufagus]

People who are having a Matrix-style argument with you are bullshitting. We know they are bullshitting because they do no believe what they are saying. We know they don't believe it because they are saying anything at all. It's like Russell's solipsist being surprised that there weren't more solipsists.

In other words, people who use reality (such as a conversation) to assert that reality isn't real are just playing a language game. If they truly believed that reality wasn't real, they would behave rather differently. The Baseball Bat test exposes that: it brings the conversation back to the brute fact that even the most ardent evangelist for unreality does not, even for a second, actually doubt reality.

It is perfectly possible to have an honest conversation about mind-matter. Scientists and psychologists do it all the time. However, their conversations are predicated on the supremacy of observation. All statements are proved or disproved by observing reality. What the YPBBT does is restore observation to its rightful place in the conversation.

That's a straw man--aside from a couple of college sophomores, no one argues for unreality. The question posed by the brain in a vat (and similar thought experiments) isn't about reality vs. unreality, it is about whether we could be radically misconstruing our sensations.

[JamesBannon]

People who are having a Matrix-style argument with you are bullshitting. We know they are bullshitting because they do no believe what they are saying. We know they don't believe it because they are saying anything at all. It's like Russell's solipsist being surprised that there weren't more solipsists.

In other words, people who use reality (such as a conversation) to assert that reality isn't real are just playing a language game. If they truly believed that reality wasn't real, they would behave rather differently. The Baseball Bat test exposes that: it brings the conversation back to the brute fact that even the most ardent evangelist for unreality does not, even for a second, actually doubt reality.

It is perfectly possible to have an honest conversation about mind-matter. Scientists and psychologists do it all the time. However, their conversations are predicated on the supremacy of observation. All statements are proved or disproved by observing reality. What the YPBBT does is restore observation to its rightful place in the conversation.

That's a straw man--aside from a couple of college sophomores, no one argues for unreality. The question posed by the brain in a vat (and similar thought experiments) isn't about reality vs. unreality, it is about whether we could be radically misconstruing our sensations.

And even if we were, Quiz, how would we know the difference? We wouldn't.

[Quizalufagus]

And even if we were, Quiz, how would we know the difference? We wouldn't.

Yeah, that's the point. The fact that there is no difference suggests that the question itself is wrong, which undercuts any realist account of knowledge.

[JamesBannon]

And even if we were, Quiz, how would we know the difference? We wouldn't.

Yeah, that's the point. The fact that there is no difference suggests that the question itself is wrong, which undercuts any realist account of knowledge.

By "realist" do you mean that somehow our abstractions have an existence of their own? If so, then I agree.

[Quizalufagus]

By "realist" do you mean that somehow our abstractions have an existence of their own?

I was thinking of advocates of the Correspondence Theory of Truth in particular, though your description is as good as any.

[JamesBannon]

Typically, science assumes that reality is external, and observations (repeated by independent observers) are stable, though. I don't think we could do much science without the last assumption at least.

[Celsus]

Observations are theory-laden themselves. But I've no interest in getting into a freshman philosophy of science debate (never mind that ultimately I'm a scientific realist myself - just that these kinds of arguments are just awful). I encourage Yahzi to purchase a beginner's guide to philosophy of science and see whether he actually understands instrumentalism and other forms of anti-realism, which do not necessarily say much about reality, but the nature in which we understand it.

[Barbarian]

Reminds me of a similar proposition.

We were supposed to learn Marxist philosophy and scientific materialism in high school (and in university and in the army and ...). Our teacher, who appeared to have decided for a career in teaching philosophy because it did not involve heavy lifting, explained to us what the "idealists" believed (basically he explained solipsism in crude terms), working himself up in the process, and finally shouted foaming at the mouth "... but comrade Lenin gave a slam-dunk response to these bourgeois philosophers by proposing that they should run headfirst into a cliff and see if they maintain their ridiculous belief that the physical world does not exist".

It was funny at the time.

[Quizalufagus]

Typically, science assumes that reality is external, and observations (repeated by independent observers) are stable, though. I don't think we could do much science without the last assumption at least.

Why? I don't see any issue with using the scientific method to investigate an unstable system (at least as long as it is somewhat continuous). Granted that you may not get the kind of powerful theories you would in a stable system, but I don't think that is such a problem.

[Yahzi]

That's a straw man--aside from a couple of college sophomores, no one argues for unreality.
Normally, when accusing people of logical fallacies, one does not immediately follow the accusation with its own rebuttal. :p

In actual fact it is more than just a few college sophomores who make the argument that reality isn't real. A brief perusal of the JREF archives might be a place to start.

The question posed by the brain in a vat (and similar thought experiments) isn't about reality vs. unreality, it is about whether we could be radically misconstruing our sensations.
Which is precisely what the YPBBT addresses: the level at which one truly believes we are misconstruing. It establishes a ground floor, as it were, to just how misconstrued we can be.

[Yahzi]

Observations are theory-laden themselves.
That does not invalidate them.

I encourage Yahzi to purchase a beginner's guide to philosophy of science
You have no idea what my level of education or exposure to philosophy is. It might behoove you to inquire first and snark later.

and see whether he actually understands instrumentalism and other forms of anti-realism, which do not necessarily say much about reality, but the nature in which we understand it.
Let me get this straight: your complaint is that my argument does not address some particular, specific anti-realist argument that you just now introduced into the conversation?

I'm flattered, but I doubt that even I can come up with an argument that addresses every possible theory sight unseen.

Although frankly, I think the YPBBT comes close. :D If you'd care to advance some specific propositions, I'd enjoy hearing them.

[Quizalufagus]

Normally, when accusing people of logical fallacies, one does not immediately follow the accusation with its own rebuttal. :p

Please elaborate.

In actual fact it is more than just a few college sophomores who make the argument that reality isn't real. A brief perusal of the JREF archives might be a place to start.

Can you point to a single major philosopher who has claimed "reality isn't real"?

Which is precisely what the YPBBT addresses: the level at which one truly believes we are misconstruing. It establishes a ground floor, as it were, to just how misconstrued we can be.

No, it doesn't. Your test doesn't address anything, because it is entirely consistent with every notable metaphysical theory. This sort of test didn't even refute Berkeley's idealism.

[Celsus]

Observations are theory-laden themselves.
That does not invalidate them.

I encourage Yahzi to purchase a beginner's guide to philosophy of science
You have no idea what my level of education or exposure to philosophy is. It might behoove you to inquire first and snark later.

and see whether he actually understands instrumentalism and other forms of anti-realism, which do not necessarily say much about reality, but the nature in which we understand it.
Let me get this straight: your complaint is that my argument does not address some particular, specific anti-realist argument that you just now introduced into the conversation?
Bringing up instrumentalism is like Philosophy of Science 101... it's practically the very first thing Philosophy of Science students learn about science, reality, observation, etc. (usually in conjunction with realism at the other end of the spectrum). These are well-trodden paths you've never come across from the looks of it, hence why those of us who disagree don't particularly feel like getting in an argument with you. We needn't even go into Dummett's anti-realist arguments which I'm sure would go straight over your head, never mind Niiniluoto's realist defense. Instrumentalism is the most basic divergence from realist and positivist sides of the spectrum. The fact that you're not familiar with it, and your insistence on beating straw men based on arguments you had with people equally ignorant in philosophy of science tells me you still haven't popped into the library to get a basic introduction to philosophy of science. Better late than never though.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Ah, Philosophy of Science. What people do when they can't get a research grant.


:p :evil:

[Yahzi]

Please elaborate.
You stated that no one argues for the unreality of reality. Immediately after you stated a group of people that does.

Can you point to a single major philosopher who has claimed "reality isn't real"?
Now we're moving the goal-posts. I mentioned the JREF archives as a source of unrealists, and now you want to restrict your comment to "major philosophers." I don't generally get into conversations with major philosophers, so it's not really my area of concern.

However, reading through the rest of your post, you suggest that Berkeley was an idealist. Does Berkeley count as a "major philosopher?" If so, you've answered your own argument... again.

No, it doesn't. Your test doesn't address anything, because it is entirely consistent with every notable metaphysical theory. This sort of test didn't even refute Berkeley's idealism.
Having to explain a joke really takes the humor of out it.

The point of the YBBT is not that it is inconsistent with, or even a refutation of, metaphysical theories. The point is that it establishes a common ground that all (notable) metaphysical theories must share. Furthermore, that common ground is shown to be extremely critical to all further inquiry (and indeed existence). It introduces the functionalist argument, which states that any idealistic theory of reality that is indistinguishable from plain old reality is, itself, merely plain old reality.

The reason it's funny is because it is possible for the argument to "win" in an unexpected way. Short of making the full functionalist argument, your opponent can be incapacitated and thus you win the argument by default. Since the person making the argument was almost certainly a wanker, their silence becomes an additional benefit. The "violence" stands as counter-point to the expected dry, academic response.

[Preno]

The reason it's funny is because it is possible for the argument to "win" in an unexpected way. Short of making the full functionalist argument, your opponent can be incapacitated and thus you win the argument by default. Since the person making the argument was almost certainly a wanker, their silence becomes an additional benefit. The "violence" stands as counter-point to the expected dry, academic response.So why would it follow from antirealism or irrealism that you should keep hitting yourself in the head with a baseball bat because someone on the internet said so? :dunno:

[lpetrich]

Ah, Philosophy of Science. What people do when they can't get a research grant.
How's that the case?

But returning to the main point, I think that the baseball-bat test is a convincing demonstration that there are parts of reality that are independent of one's conscious decisions.

This does not prove that all reality is independent of thought, however. It is consistent with the simulation theory, which has been proposed in various forms over the centuries. The Hindu "Brahma dream", Hegel's Absolute Idea, "The Matrix", the "brain in a vat", etc.

However, such a simulation would be independent of the consciousness of each one of us.


This leads us to the question of metaphysical idealism. There are two main forms of it: subjective idealism and objective idealism. Subjective idealism leads to solipsism -- how can one be sure that there are other minds? Objective idealism typically involves some version of the simulation theory.

I remember someone who advocated a version of subjective idealism, claiming that we are only directly acquainted with sense data. However, she felt sure that there are other minds, which seemed to me to be an unwarranted inference from her premise.

[Quizalufagus]

You stated that no one argues for the unreality of reality. Immediately after you stated a group of people that does.

No, I did not.

Now we're moving the goal-posts. I mentioned the JREF archives as a source of unrealists, and now you want to restrict your comment to "major philosophers." I don't generally get into conversations with major philosophers, so it's not really my area of concern.

It is hardly moving the goalposts to ask for an example of a major philosopher who holds the view you are supposedly refuting. If your point is that there are some folks on the extreme fringe who hold the view you're refuting, then we agree--though I have no idea why you'd bother to write a refutation at all.

However, reading through the rest of your post, you suggest that Berkeley was an idealist. Does Berkeley count as a "major philosopher?" If so, you've answered your own argument... again.

How so? Idealists do not believe in unreality, they believe in a particular account of metaphysics. I hope your thesis amounts to more than saying your baseball bat test refutes anti-realist accounts of metaphysics, because that would be absurd.

The point of the YBBT is not that it is inconsistent with, or even a refutation of, metaphysical theories. The point is that it establishes a common ground that all (notable) metaphysical theories must share. Furthermore, that common ground is shown to be extremely critical to all further inquiry (and indeed existence). It introduces the functionalist argument, which states that any idealistic theory of reality that is indistinguishable from plain old reality is, itself, merely plain old reality.

Your test doesn't really suggest functionalism, and I'm not sure why you think it does.

[Yahzi]

You stated that no one argues for the unreality of reality. Immediately after you stated a group of people that does.
No, I did not.
That's a straw man--aside from a couple of college sophomores, no one argues for unreality.

Apparently we have different understandings of the English language.

If your point is that there are some folks on the extreme fringe who hold the view you're refuting, then we agree--though I have no idea why you'd bother to write a refutation at all.
A text-book example of the Courtier's Reply. Bravo!

How so? Idealists do not believe in unreality,
At this point I have no idea what you mean by the term "unreality." In general it appears I am unable to determine what you mean by pretty much any term. Nor can I recall what your objection is, and it seems likely I never understood it in the first place.

[Quizalufagus]

A text-book example of the Courtier's Reply. Bravo!

How so? There are, afaik, no notable philosophers who hold the view you seem to be attacking, so is it not a legitimate criticism to say that you are attacking only those on the fringe?

At this point I have no idea what you mean by the term "unreality." In general it appears I am unable to determine what you mean by pretty much any term. Nor can I recall what your objection is, and it seems likely I never understood it in the first place.

No, I don't think you did. Tbh, I don't think you understand what various anti-realists are claiming to begin with.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Ah, Philosophy of Science. What people do when they can't get a research grant.
How's that the case?

It's called 'teasing', mate :D The implication was, to paraphrase Mencken: Those who can, do science. Those who can't, philosophise about it.

:rolleyes: :p :D

[RexT]

Good thread.

I would argue that the 'bat test' is essentially useless, since it doesn't produce any knowledge that any other sensation produces. Pain is a fact of any reality. But so is pleasure, which is just the other end on the same spectrum of sensuality.

Without feeling something, there would be nothing to indicate reality of any sort, so there would be no discussions or arguments about reality as the case might be. In short, there would be no reality.

Reality is but a spectrum of sensations. To argue whether something is real or unreal is essentially semantics. Every sensation is necessarily real, for sensation and reality are the same thing.

Now, the notion of a matrix attempts to question the nature of reality, not whether it exists, as it necessarily exists in all sensation, but whether it is somehow limited to a physical reality. Physical is only a word that describes a narrow band in the vast spectrum of sensation and not independent of sensation. How indeed could a senseless being yet describe reality as physical or any other thing for that matter? Nothing of the sort is the least possible.

The notion of a matrix is possible because we are NOT limited to a physical reality. We do in fact sense a comparison between one reality and others, each similar yet different enough that it becomes apparent that reality is not described comprehensively by the word physical. If there is an underlying unity in nature, it is not the physical parts but the whole spectrum of sensation. All sensation is based on what we might simply call vibrations. Such vibrations form a scale or spectrum labeled as physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual.

Altered states of sensation or altered states of consciousness, such as dreams, provide additional comparisons between different realities. On one end of the spectrum it is relatively uniform and predictable, toward the other end it becomes increasingly chaotic and unpredictable. We could frame this in terms of conformity at the physical end and freedom on the spiritual end if you like.

To claim that one reality (say, physical) is real while all other realities are unreal is simply a mistake as I see it.

My challenge to those who might disagree is to provide a mechanism other than sensation for determining the nature of reality.

[Yahzi]

My challenge to those who might disagree is to provide a mechanism other than sensation for determining the nature of reality.
Of course all of our knowledge comes from sensation (or as I would call it, observation). However, not all sensations are created equal.

All of our sensations are products of external stimuli + internal filters. This makes determining what is real/external and what is imaginary/internal problematic. However, we can minimize the amount of signal that is produce by filter with careful experimental protocol.

The YBBT is a good experiment in that the amount of signal coming from the operator's internal filters is very, very low, and the amount of signal coming from external stimuli is very, very high. This makes it the opposite of useless. :)

[Yahzi]

A text-book example of the Courtier's Reply. Bravo!

How so? There are, afaik, no notable philosophers who hold the view you seem to be attacking, so is it not a legitimate criticism to say that you are attacking only those on the fringe?
When did I say otherwise?

Yes, I am attacking those on the fringe. For instance, Ken Wilber, Rhonda Byrne, and Oprah. When did I say otherwise?

Of course, any number of notable philosophers have inveighed against anti-realism, but you can take that up with them.

[RexT]

Of course all of our knowledge comes from sensation (or as I would call it, observation). However, not all sensations are created equal.So you meant to say that not all observations are created equal, using your term. But that is not entirely true since all observations/sensations are created by the the same brain/mind. The difference lies in how each sensation is interpreted and used.

All of our sensations are products of external stimuli + internal filters.Dreams are not entirely products of external stimuli. This makes determining what is real/external and what is imaginary/internal problematic.The dichotomy between internal and external is problematic. It sets up a duality that while useful in many situations is really a false dichotomy. There is only one nature, many sensations, thus many realities. While I strongly favor this dichotomy on practical grounds, I reject duality in nature.

However, we can minimize the amount of signal that is produce by filter with careful experimental protocol.Yes, science is beneficial in practical terms, but it doesn't question the nature of reality. It merely takes reality at face value, which it must do to be effective.

The YBBT is a good experiment in that the amount of signal coming from the operator's internal filters is very, very low, and the amount of signal coming from external stimuli is very, very high. This makes it the opposite of useless. Perhaps useless was too harsh. And again I agree that science is good at reducing bias, which I think is your point.

Obviously, your bat test is not useless to you and certain others, but it can no more differentiate reality than any other arbitrarily chosen sensation could. As for me, the frame of reference I choose to address reality from is usually from the practical necessity of the desire to live long and prosper. I don't care if it is ultimately correct or a complete myth as long as I get the results I want to get.

[Yahzi]

Dreams are not entirely products of external stimuli.
Actually, research implies that much of dream content is in fact suggested by external (current) stimuli. However, that content is heavily filtered. That was my point: that some sensations (such as dreams) are more heavily filtered than others (such as baseball bat tests).

To be fair, I should have made more allowance for feedback (internal stimulation from past external stimuli + filters). I just wrapped that up in the whole "filter" part.


There is only one nature, many sensations, thus many realities.
I don't know what you mean by that, but I suspect I strongly disagree with it.


Obviously, your bat test is not useless to you and certain others, but it can no more differentiate reality than any other arbitrarily chosen sensation could.
You'd think this would be obvious; but amazingly, some people are capable of ignoring all sorts of sensations while denying the existence of reality. However, I've never met the person who could deny the baseball bat test. Hence it's usefulness. :)

I don't care if it is ultimately correct or a complete myth as long as I get the results I want to get.
At the risk of cross-polluting this thread, your position is quite similar to the difference between atheists and agnostics.

Agnostics like to say they're not making a determination either way. Atheists like to point out that not making a determination as to God's existence is exactly the same as not believing in God.

Similarily, your wholesale neglect of alternate realities in favor of real-world results is, effectively, the absence of belief in alternate realities.

In other words, you don't need to take the baseball bat test. :D

[RexT]

Dreams are not entirely products of external stimuli.
Actually, research implies that much of dream content is in fact suggested by external (current) stimuli. However, that content is heavily filtered. That was my point: that some sensations (such as dreams) are more heavily filtered than others (such as baseball bat tests).

To be fair, I should have made more allowance for feedback (internal stimulation from past external stimuli + filters). I just wrapped that up in the whole "filter" part.Well, to speak of filters in this context is metaphorical and thus tricky. I know exactly what a literal filter does. It restricts some particles while allowing others to pass through.

As I see it, using the term filter to describe cognitive behavior means only one thing, beliefs. One's reality is filtered by one's beliefs. The theist and atheist for example experience a different reality because each has different beliefs. I know it is tempting to think that both the theist and the atheist experience exactly the same reality once the bat test is applied equally to both, but that just isn't the way it works. What some feel as pain others feel as pleasure of some sort. So again the test is arbitrary and subjective. It tells us a lot about how beliefs work but not so much about the "true" nature of reality.


There is only one nature, many sensations, thus many realities.I don't know what you mean by that, but I suspect I strongly disagree with it.I mean there is only one universe in which all realities occur. But reality, as I mentioned before, is created by sensation, and that "filtered" by a person's beliefs. So there are as many realities as there are sensations.

You'd think this would be obvious; but amazingly, some people are capable of ignoring all sorts of sensations while denying the existence of reality. However, I've never met the person who could deny the baseball bat test. Hence it's usefulness. :)Well, I've personally never met people who walked on fire, but I believe there are such people. Your premise assumes that all sentient beings are the same and thus experience the same reality. That I believe is not even possible.

At the risk of cross-polluting this thread, your position is quite similar to the difference between atheists and agnostics.

Agnostics like to say they're not making a determination either way. Atheists like to point out that not making a determination as to God's existence is exactly the same as not believing in God.Then atheists are wrong. There are some things I decidedly do not believe and things that I cannot decide. If that is not a difference I suppose I don't know what is.

Similarily, your wholesale neglect of alternate realities in favor of real-world results is, effectively, the absence of belief in alternate realities.

In other words, you don't need to take the baseball bat test. :DYou misunderstood my position. I particularly mentioned dreams because dreams are an alternate reality from what we call awake. I was speaking of my rational viewpoint concerning the nature of reality. And that viewpoint is the same in either reality. I am claiming that reality is not a thing-in-itself but a state of mind. Or if reality were a thing-in-itself, no one can determine which is the real reality. It is impossible to determine whether this world is real of whether dreams are real. We might as well be a brain-in-a-vat. So given that impossibility it becomes rational to labor only towards that which one can determine and control. Namely, to achieve personal goals whilst alive and able. All else is a waste of precious time.

[Yahzi]

Well, to speak of filters in this context is metaphorical and thus tricky.
Welcome to language.

The theist and atheist for example experience a different reality because each has different beliefs.
This is exactly what the YBBT is intended to refute.

However, words only carry an argument so far. Therefore, I retract my previous well-intentioned judgment and invite you to test the issue empirically.

Your premise assumes that all sentient beings are the same
My premise is that there are no privileged viewpoints.

Then atheists are wrong. There are some things I decidedly do not believe and things that I cannot decide. If that is not a difference I suppose I don't know what is.
Do you believe those things which you cannot decide? No? Then you are without belief in those undecidable things. If you are without belief in god(s), you are an atheist (you may also be an agnostic as well).

Or if reality were a thing-in-itself, no one can determine which is the real reality.
Actually, anyone can, and it is quite easy to do so. Go back to the first post and apply the YBBT.

[RexT]

The theist and atheist for example experience a different reality because each has different beliefs.This is exactly what the YBBT is intended to refute.

However, words only carry an argument so far. Therefore, I retract my previous well-intentioned judgment and invite you to test the issue empirically.Yahzi, in order for there to be a thing called reality there must be experience of some sort. Experience in any reality will range between sensations of pain and pleasure. Your test would produce essentially the same result in every reality. Thus your test tells us nothing unique about reality. For example, if while dreaming I am hit by a bat, I would likely experience something I considered pain. This test proves nothing.

My premise is that there are no privileged viewpoints.That much I agree with. But I come to that same conclusion, not because I experience pain or fear of pain, (I would experience those in any reality) but because I understand the nature of reality. Reality is like Godel's incompleteness theorem; it is true yet unprovable; it is an insoluble mystery; it is a paradox; it is incomplete and it exists only within the mind of a sentient being. Anything that might still somehow exist outside the experiential mind is pure speculation, unreachable, not reality.

Or if reality were a thing-in-itself, no one can determine which is the real reality.Actually, anyone can, and it is quite easy to do so. Go back to the first post and apply the YBBT.As I've already stated, the results of your test would be essentially the same in any reality, so it tells us nothing about reality that any other sensation doesn't also tell us.

Seriously, I think you and me must have a very different concept of what the word reality means. To me, reality is nothing but experience, which must include pain. Without pain there is no reality of any kind. You can speculate about a senseless reality if you like, but it is only your own speculations. I could speculate as well, but to the same affect. Your bat test does not resolve a dilemma in the least way. It merely points out the obvious, that reality involves pain and pleasure. That hardly strikes me as informative or profound. In fact, it is as mundane as stating that organisms are complex.

Words only get us so far on some argument, you say. Words are nothing unless they mean something that can eventually be traced back to or arrive at an experience of some kind. I for one am not somehow confused between the difference in words and the experiences they attempt to communicate. And I also know that words can often communicate sensations as real as being hit by a bat. Words can hurt like hell or be ecstatically invigorating when they really do communicate effectively.

The word empirical means nothing unless it means that which is experienced. But what exactly it is that causes experience is unknown. It doesn't matter what causes experience. It's like asking; what causes energy and matter? What matters is how experience is interpreted. Likewise for energy; what matters is the interactions among its forms. Reality is not like a thing-in-itself but this or that arrangement of sensual forms as they perpetually progress through countless variations and novelty. At least that is my interpretation of reality.

To borrow a concept from the movie Matrix: No one can say what reality is; it must be experienced. But the other side of the coin is that reality must also be communicated.

I embrace the power of theory, as well we all should, but theory without experience is as senseless and meaningless as possible to imagine. I assume you would really like to say that your bat test proves the worthlessness of theory without experience. But really, the best way to reach this realization is not with examples of pain (or pleasure for that matter), but through the loss of all experience.

[Yahzi]

For example, if while dreaming I am hit by a bat, I would likely experience something I considered pain. This test proves nothing.
Only because you didn't try it long enough. Keep swinging! Pretty soon you'll see what I mean.

I understand the nature of reality. Reality is like Godel's incompleteness theorem; it is true yet unprovable; it is an insoluble mystery; it is a paradox; it is incomplete and it exists only within the mind of a sentient being.
Godel's incompleteness theorem is an appeal to reality; it is the recognition that formal systems can only approximate the real world. I don't know how you've taken a theorem that proves the existence of external reality and turned it into an argument for the Matrix.

Also, the notion that reality only exists in the mind of a sentient being is either a) bizarre or b) a semantic ploy. The Copenhagen interpretation is not what people think it is. They forget that an electron can serve as an observer.

And given that you describe reality as an unknowable paradox, you seem pretty certain of your knowledge of it.

As I've already stated, the results of your test would be essentially the same in any reality, so it tells us nothing about reality that any other sensation doesn't also tell us.
Right. It tells there is only one reality. That's why it's the same in all realities - because there is only one reality.

Seriously, I think you and me must have a very different concept of what the word reality means.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. - Philip K. Dick.


Reality is the fact that you - the person reading this - are a pack of neurons in a particular configuration, and if that configuration is disrupted in any significant way, you cease to exist. Experiences are simply modifications to that configuration.

And I also know that words can often communicate sensations as real as being hit by a bat.
I hate to say this, but I think you need to spend a little more time being hit by bats. You seem to have lost perspective.

But the other side of the coin is that reality must also be communicated.
You understand that reality exists even when it is not perceived, right?

I mean, this is a concept you're supposed to get at about 2. Objects persist even when you aren't aware of them.

I assume you would really like to say that your bat test proves the worthlessness of theory without experience.
No, I would like to say my bat instantiates Godel's theorem: that is, whether you can prove objective reality or not, it's still true.

[Preno]

I understand the nature of reality. Reality is like Godel's incompleteness theorem; it is true yet unprovable; it is an insoluble mystery; it is a paradox; it is incomplete and it exists only within the mind of a sentient being.Godel's incompleteness theorem is an appeal to reality; it is the recognition that formal systems can only approximate the real world.They say nothing of the sort. Godel's theorems deal with arithmetic, not the real world. They say that we cannot algorithmically generate all the truths of arithmetic.

[Sidhe747]

Solipsism is what happens when you stop thinking.

Solipsists are what happens when creationists lose faith.

[Yahzi]

Godel's theorems deal with arithmetic, not the real world.
I have no idea what you mean by the "real" world.

You seem to be using the primitive and obsolete philosophy according to which language is just putting labels on things.

[Sidhe747]

Godel's theorems deal with arithmetic, not the real world.
I have no idea what you mean by the "real" world.


You seem to be using the primitive and obsolete philosophy according to which language is just putting labels on things.

"all philosophy is epistemology and etymology"

Wittgenstein.

ie

Etymologists apply a number of methods to study the origins of words, some of which are:

* Philological research. Changes in the form and meaning of the word can be traced with the aid of older texts, if such are available.
* Making use of dialectological data. The form or meaning of the word might show variation between dialects, which may yield clues of its earlier history.
* The comparative method. By a systematic comparison of related languages, etymologists can detect which words derive from their common ancestor language and which were instead later borrowed from another language.
* The study of semantic change. Etymologists often have to make hypotheses about changes of meaning of particular words. Such hypotheses are tested against the general knowledge of semantic shifts. For example, the assumption of a particular change of meaning can be substantiated by showing that the same type of change has occurred in many other languages as well.


And

Epistemology (from Greek ἐπιστήμη - episteme-, "knowledge, science" + λόγος, "logos") or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge.[1] It addresses the questions:

* What is knowledge?
* How is knowledge acquired?
* What do people know?
* How do we know what we know?

Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims.

The term was introduced into English by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier (1808–1864).[2]

[Preno]

Godel's theorems deal with arithmetic, not the real world.
I have no idea what you mean by the "real" world.

You seem to be using the primitive and obsolete philosophy according to which language is just putting labels on things.I'm just quoting you, you idiot. Whatever you meant by "the real world", I'm pretty sure it wasn't arithmetic, which is what Godel's theorems are concerned with.

Did you really think that was a clever retort?

[Yahzi]

scholarly stuff
I was parodying a quote from Preno, over in the The Humanist Problem of Evil thread. My post was taken directly from his, except for the italicized part, which in his case was the phrase "objective reality."

In other words, I was being funny.

By the way, Wittigenstien was wrong. All philosophy is epistemology. Everything else is a science.

[Sidhe747]

scholarly stuff
I was parodying a quote from Preno, over in the The Humanist Problem of Evil thread. My post was taken directly from his, except for the italicized part, which in his case was the phrase "objective reality."

In other words, I was being funny.

By the way, Wittigenstien was wrong. All philosophy is epistemology. Everything else is a science.

I trust you can prove that in formal logic? :p

If God isn't dead then we have certainly killed him!

[Yahzi]

I trust you can prove that in formal logic? :p
I can make up definitions as easily as Wittigenstien.

Also, I strongly doubt there is a formal proof of the position that philosophy is about any specific topic, so I'm not sure what you mean.

[Preno]

By the way, Wittigenstien was wrong.
I can make up definitions as easily as Wittigenstien.welp

[Sidhe747]

I trust you can prove that in formal logic? :p
I can make up definitions as easily as Wittigenstien.

Also, I strongly doubt there is a formal proof of the position that philosophy is about any specific topic, so I'm not sure what you mean.

God is dead!

Long live Philosophy.

Philosophy is about ontology isn't it?

[RexT]

God is dead!If you mean the idea of god, you couldn't be more wrong. If you mean an actual god, I was unaware that such was ever alive to begin with.

Long live Philosophy.No particular philosophy lives very long. The act of philosophizing has ever been a part of humanity and I can see no reason that this will ever change.

Philosophy is about ontology isn't it?No. Ontology is only part of philosophy. What philosophy is really about is making sense of things.

[Sidhe747]

God is dead!If you mean the idea of god, you couldn't be more wrong. If you mean an actual god, I was unaware that such was ever alive to begin with.

We are God.


Long live Philosophy.No particular philosophy lives very long. The act of philosophizing has ever been a part of humanity and I can see no reason that this will ever change.

Religion, science, philosophy all were just attempts to impress the opposite sex.


Philosophy is about ontology isn't it?No. Ontology is only part of philosophy. What philosophy is really about is making sense of things.

Teleology, epistemology, ethics etc. Yeah I know.

[RexT]

We are God.We are the only actual gods that live upon the earth and the nearby surrounding heavens. But we are not the idealized gods that we create. Always we imagine something greater than we are at the time. Perhaps distant ancestors once imagined gods whose words traveled at the speed of thought. We can now send our words across the world at the speed of light, which I think is faster than thought.

We are gods, as you say.

[Sidhe747]

We are God.We are the only actual gods that live upon the earth and the nearby surrounding heavens. But we are not the idealized gods that we create. Always we imagine something greater than we are at the time. Perhaps distant ancestors once imagined gods whose words traveled at the speed of thought. We can now send our words across the world at the speed of light, which I think is faster than thought.

We are gods, as you say.

Not as fast as me.

I am the speed limit of the Universe.

We are God always have been.

[RexT]

Only because you didn't try it long enough. Keep swinging! Pretty soon you'll see what I mean.Explain how your bat test would be different if really this world was just a super advanced Matrix-like reality. I believe there would be no discernible difference for the person being hit.

Godel's incompleteness theorem is an appeal to reality; it is the recognition that formal systems can only approximate the real world. I don't know how you've taken a theorem that proves the existence of external reality and turned it into an argument for the Matrix.Well, I too would like to believe that the so-called 'real world', unlike formal systems, was really complete. But having no means to make such a determination leaves me only to wonder.

Godel's theorem really doesn't say anything about anything except itself, which is of course mathematics. It is that Godel having devised a mathematical language so that math could speak about itself that it became really self-aware and thus circular and incomplete.No doubt this has many beneficial implications for how we navigate the so-called real world. But then all mathematics is useful for navigation of the world. Otherwise it would be useless.

Also, the notion that reality only exists in the mind of a sentient being is either a) bizarre or b) a semantic ploy. The Copenhagen interpretation is not what people think it is. They forget that an electron can serve as an observer.False dichotomy. c) a definition.

And given that you describe reality as an unknowable paradox, you seem pretty certain of your knowledge of it.But it's not completely unknowable. I am certain that reality is unresolvable, at least by humans. Maybe a god exists that could comprehend reality, who knows.

Right. It tells there is only one reality. That's why it's the same in all realities - because there is only one reality.Only one? Which one is that? I mean the idea is appealing on some level. But really, one-size-fits-all doesn't describe reality. If you mean something like there is only one set of physical laws for each person in the world, fine. But does the present world encompass the entirety of reality? Not even close. I believe the big bang theory because of the evidence. But what becomes of the physical laws absent a big bang? Without a material world that is well developed as ours is, there is no telling what sort of laws might exist. There is no telling what sort of realities could yet exist or have existed. There is no telling even whether the universe is finite or infinite. We only have one world that we currently all share, but that in itself is not proof that other worlds do not or cannot in principle exist.

I have experienced to some degree other worlds, though I cannot share them with anyone. What should I conclude; that those worlds do not exist or cannot exist? For the sake of practicality, yes. I might as well treat those worlds as imaginary. The experience, though brief, was quite real however. For a few moments reality was paradise. On the other hand, I have entered other worlds and for longer that I cared for I was in the reality of hell. But never have I ever completely lost sight of the fact that if I wanted to remain in a particularly physical world, I must play by its laws. Of course, that would be true of any world, so it's hardly much to speak about.

Reality is the fact that you - the person reading this - are a pack of neurons in a particular configuration, and if that configuration is disrupted in any significant way, you cease to exist. Experiences are simply modifications to that configuration.Well, not necessarily. While there is every reason to believe that a direct correlation exists between brain configuration and experience, there is yet to be a sufficient reason to believe that one is the product of the other. For instance, my TV's configuration produces sounds and pictures? If the configuration is changed, the sounds and pictures change. Alter it enough, say, hit my TV with a bat and it might not show anything ever again. However, it is demonstrably true that my TV is not in fact the source of the sounds and pictures, which really originate from a TV station. Can you likewise demonstrate the actual source of experience does not come from a remote location? Or do you as I suspect merely assume it does not?

You understand that reality exists even when it is not perceived, right?

I mean, this is a concept you're supposed to get at about 2. Objects persist even when you aren't aware of them.I understand that something still exists when I'm not looking. I'm not sure it makes any sense to call it reality though. I usually just call it nature. For me, reality and experience are the same thing. The actual stuff that is the real source of experience, I cannot in good faith claim to know what it is.

No, I would like to say my bat instantiates Godel's theorem: that is, whether you can prove objective reality or not, it's still true.Well, 1 + 1 = 2 is true. True and false are propositions negated only by the other. The only things that are true or false are mathematical or logical propositions or axioms. Do you really believe that reality is a mathematical and/or logical proposition? Do you really believe that mathematics can resolve whether reality is contrived? Mathematics is contrived, so I think it too biased for resolving the issue.

[Sidhe747]

Only because you didn't try it long enough. Keep swinging! Pretty soon you'll see what I mean.Explain how your bat test would be different if really this world was just a super advanced Matrix-like reality. I believe there would be no discernible difference for the person being hit.

Easy Laplace's Demon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon

Quantum mechanics says that nothing is determined all is probable. Thus LFW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28metaphysics%29

And thus free will.

And thus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

And thus I must exist and thus I am God.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/d/1/dd19b40a4cb71e2808ca26f9ec064775.png

I await your derogatory proofs that counter an axiom?!?


Godel's incompleteness theorem is an appeal to reality; it is the recognition that formal systems can only approximate the real world. I don't know how you've taken a theorem that proves the existence of external reality and turned it into an argument for the Matrix.Well, I too would like to believe that the so-called 'real world', unlike formal systems, was really complete. But having no means to make such a determination leaves me only to wonder.

LFW, I promise you as God you have free will.


Godel's theorem really doesn't say anything about anything except itself, which is of course mathematics. It is that Godel having devised a mathematical language so that math could speak about itself that it became really self-aware and thus circular and incomplete.No doubt this has many beneficial implications for how we navigate the so-called real world. But then all mathematics is useful for navigation of the world. Otherwise it would be useless.

God's Hotel theorem and Cantors continuum hypothesis.

http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2009/03/how-god-could-c.html


Also, the notion that reality only exists in the mind of a sentient being is either a) bizarre or b) a semantic ploy. The Copenhagen interpretation is not what people think it is. They forget that an electron can serve as an observer.False dichotomy. c) a definition.

If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around to hear it does it make a sound?


And given that you describe reality as an unknowable paradox, you seem pretty certain of your knowledge of it.But it's not completely unknowable. I am certain that reality is unresolvable, at least by humans. Maybe a god exists that could comprehend reality, who knows.

What is infinity and what can you add to it or take away from it?


Right. It tells there is only one reality. That's why it's the same in all realities - because there is only one reality.Only one? Which one is that? I mean the idea is appealing on some level. But really, one-size-fits-all doesn't describe reality. If you mean something like there is only one set of physical laws for each person in the world, fine. But does the present world encompass the entirety of reality? Not even close. I believe the big bang theory because of the evidence. But what becomes of the physical laws absent a big bang? Without a material world that is well developed as ours is, there is no telling what sort of laws might exist. There is no telling what sort of realities could yet exist or have existed. There is no telling even whether the universe is finite or infinite. We only have one world that we currently all share, but that in itself is not proof that other worlds do not or cannot in principle exist.

I am the Messiah. And I tell you truly the only reality is mine. There is no life in scripture only death, and the only way you will know me is through life and living.


I have experienced to some degree other worlds, though I cannot share them with anyone. What should I conclude; that those worlds do not exist or cannot exist? For the sake of practicality, yes. I might as well treat those worlds as imaginary. The experience, though brief, was quite real however. For a few moments reality was paradise. On the other hand, I have entered other worlds and for longer that I cared for I was in the reality of hell. But never have I ever completely lost sight of the fact that if I wanted to remain in a particularly physical world, I must play by its laws. Of course, that would be true of any world, so it's hardly much to speak about.

Many worlds and many minds, but many mansions have I in my hotel.


Reality is the fact that you - the person reading this - are a pack of neurons in a particular configuration, and if that configuration is disrupted in any significant way, you cease to exist. Experiences are simply modifications to that configuration.Well, not necessarily. While there is every reason to believe that a direct correlation exists between brain configuration and experience, there is yet to be a sufficient reason to believe that one is the product of the other. For instance, my TV's configuration produces sounds and pictures? If the configuration is changed, the sounds and pictures change. Alter it enough, say, hit my TV with a bat and it might not show anything ever again. However, it is demonstrably true that my TV is not in fact the source of the sounds and pictures, which really originate from a TV station. Can you likewise demonstrate the actual source of experience does not come from a remote location? Or do you as I suspect merely assume it does not?

TV the drug of the nation.


You understand that reality exists even when it is not perceived, right?

I mean, this is a concept you're supposed to get at about 2. Objects persist even when you aren't aware of them.I understand that something still exists when I'm not looking. I'm not sure it makes any sense to call it reality though. I usually just call it nature. For me, reality and experience are the same thing. The actual stuff that is the real source of experience, I cannot in good faith claim to know what it is.

And you don't understand what I am saying so how now?


No, I would like to say my bat instantiates Godel's theorem: that is, whether you can prove objective reality or not, it's still true.Well, 1 + 1 = 2 is true. True and false are propositions negated only by the other. The only things that are true or false are mathematical or logical propositions or axioms. Do you really believe that reality is a mathematical and/or logical proposition? Do you really believe that mathematics can resolve whether reality is contrived? Mathematics is contrived, so I think it too biased for resolving the issue.[/QUOTE]

Can you prove I am not God and that I don't exist?

I think therefore I am?

Prove me wrong...

Your semantic arm waving is all very well but ontologically can you prove I am not God, and that I don't exist and if you can who then am I epistemologically, and then what is your teleology?


Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (defects from the other) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent (cooperates with the other), the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?

Can you win?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum

Well can you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiSkyEyBczU

[Yahzi]

Explain how your bat test would be different if really this world was just a super advanced Matrix-like reality. I believe there would be no discernible difference for the person being hit.
If there is no discernible difference, then there is no difference.

What does it mean to say that reality is a Matrix-like illusion if that illusion mimics reality in every possible way, never deviating from real reality in the tiniest bit?

What possible meaning could "Matrix-like" have if it doesn't distinguish between some other state of affairs?

Frankly, I don't care if we live in a Matrix world, if there is no escape from it. What difference does it make?

Well, I too would like to believe that the so-called 'real world', unlike formal systems, was really complete.
The real world is complete by definition.

False dichotomy. c) a definition.
No, that's option b: a semantic ploy. You've defined reality as "that which exists in the mind." This does not win the argument for you; it simply causes us to ask, "OK... what do you call that stuff that doesn't exist in the mind?" You're just changing the meaning of words instead of focusing on the point of the discussion.

But it's not completely unknowable. I am certain that reality is unresolvable, at least by humans. Maybe a god exists that could comprehend reality, who knows.
The position that reality is knowable, at least in approximation, and that we can determine which approximations are better than others, is my side of the argument, not yours. I think you got confused there. :D

Only one? Which one is that? I mean the idea is appealing on some level. But really, one-size-fits-all doesn't describe reality. If you mean something like there is only one set of physical laws for each person in the world, fine. But does the present world encompass the entirety of reality? Not even close. I believe the big bang theory because of the evidence. But what becomes of the physical laws absent a big bang? Without a material world that is well developed as ours is, there is no telling what sort of laws might exist. There is no telling what sort of realities could yet exist or have existed. There is no telling even whether the universe is finite or infinite. We only have one world that we currently all share, but that in itself is not proof that other worlds do not or cannot in principle exist.

You know those other universes the physicists talk about? They don't matter. They cannot, by definition, have any impact whatsoever on our universe. Ergo, their non-existence or existence is completely and utterly irrelevant.

I have experienced to some degree other worlds, though I cannot share them with anyone. What should I conclude; that those worlds do not exist or cannot exist?
You should conclude that it's time to back away from the crack pipe.

Well, not necessarily. While there is every reason to believe that a direct correlation exists between brain configuration and experience, there is yet to be a sufficient reason to believe that one is the product of the other. For instance, my TV's
It's rare that you meet an honest-to-goodness dualist these days. It's even rarer that you see the old TV argument.

I'm not sure it would be profitable for me to explain to you why the TV argument utterly fails to defend dualism. Do you think that would be a good use of my time?

I'm not sure it makes any sense to call it reality though. I usually just call it nature. For me, reality and experience are the same thing. The actual stuff that is the real source of experience, I cannot in good faith claim to know what it is.
Using words in non-standard ways does not equate to making an argument.

Do you really believe that reality is a mathematical and/or logical proposition? Do you really believe that mathematics can resolve whether reality is contrived?
I thought it was clear from my comments that I believe mathematics to be an approximation derived from the real world.

[Yahzi]

TV the drug of the nation.
That's what you got out of Rex's comments?

I'm sorry, dude, but you're not making any sense whatsoever. And it doesn't look like you're even trying.

Worse, you're now making long posts. So it's off to the /ignore bin for you. Adios, muchacho. :wave:

[Sidhe747]

TV the drug of the nation.
That's what you got out of Rex's comments?

I'm sorry, dude, but you're not making any sense whatsoever. And it doesn't look like you're even trying.

Worse, you're now making long posts. So it's off to the /ignore bin for you. Adios, muchacho. :wave:

There's no pleasing some people!> :evil:

[RexT]

If there is no discernible difference, then there is no difference.

What does it mean to say that reality is a Matrix-like illusion if that illusion mimics reality in every possible way, never deviating from real reality in the tiniest bit?

What possible meaning could "Matrix-like" have if it doesn't distinguish between some other state of affairs?

Frankly, I don't care if we live in a Matrix world, if there is no escape from it. What difference does it make?I should have been clearer. It's all relative. I meant that for use who are in THIS world it would be indiscernible whether it was real or Matrix. For the creators of the Matrix however, the two worlds would be easily discernible.

But like you I really don't care either way. Also, when I'm asleep and dreaming, it doesn't matter to me in that world if it is real. It seems real and I usually never even question its reality while in the dream. I just seem to be content in whatever reality I find myself.

The real world is complete by definition.Fine, but doesn't Heisenberg's uncertainty principle at least suggest that whether the real world is complete or not, we can never know?

No, that's option b: a semantic ploy. You've defined reality as "that which exists in the mind." This does not win the argument for you; it simply causes us to ask, "OK... what do you call that stuff that doesn't exist in the mind?" You're just changing the meaning of words instead of focusing on the point of the discussion.Um well yeah, definitions are indeed semantics, but I intended no ploy. I'm merely presenting a reasonable definition that takes the observer into account. I realize, as I have pointed out a number of times already, that something still exists even when I or you are unaware of it. But any definition of reality that ignores experience is at best partial and at worst meaningless.

So try it yourself. Give me a definition of reality that makes absolutely no reference to sentience, either directly or implied.

The position that reality is knowable, at least in approximation, and that we can determine which approximations are better than others, is my side of the argument, not yours. I think you got confused there. :DYou are essentially saying that we manage to survive in the world by possessing some amount of knowledge. That's not even interesting, since all organisms that exist must approximate the world to some degree.

Are you saying that since humans can produce a much finer detailed approximations than, say, monkeys can, that this entitles us to the claim that we know reality?

Let me suggest that humans are not the supreme intelligence in the universe, or that at least it seems quite possible to me that there are things that we simply cannot sense and thus ever know. The world might well be infinitely more layered than we know about.

I just can't see how this helps your side.


You know those other universes the physicists talk about? They don't matter. They cannot, by definition, have any impact whatsoever on our universe. Ergo, their non-existence or existence is completely and utterly irrelevant.Again, it's all relevant. I agree that it doesn't matter to us. Nevertheless, the question of other worlds remains an open one and your bat test does not help us resolve the question.

You should conclude that it's time to back away from the crack pipe.Naw. That all happened back when I was about 5 or 6. I didn't know what drugs were at the time.

It's rare that you meet an honest-to-goodness dualist these days. It's even rarer that you see the old TV argument.

I'm not sure it would be profitable for me to explain to you why the TV argument utterly fails to defend dualism. Do you think that would be a good use of my time?Do whatever you like with your time. I'm not making a dualist argument in any case. The TV is simply an argument to show that correlation is insufficient to determine causation. I'm probably just as much a believer that consciousness is a product of the brain as you are. However, since when did a person's beliefs constitute knowledge?

If you prove that consciousness is a product of a brain, you'll be the first.

Using words in non-standard ways does not equate to making an argument.That's true. But ignoring new ways to look at the world is not a great position either.

I thought it was clear from my comments that I believe mathematics to be an approximation derived from the real world.So how exactly are these approximations going to be different in the Matrix? How is using a bat going to be different in the Matrix? You avoided the implication of this question above. Either deal with it or concede the uselessness of your bat test to prove anything.

Look, if all you have been saying is that idealists (like far left liberals and far right conservatives) need the bat test; I wholeheartedly agree. But I'm under the impression you think it proves something about reality.

As far as I'm concerned you and I are probably pretty close in how we see reality. But this is philosophy where we get to set aside pragmatics and engage ideas on their own merits. Look, you'd think you win every argument with pragmatics. But it would be the same case in the Matrix as well. Pragmatics would win. But really, what would be the point of existing in a reality that you were not convinced it was real and the only reality? But unfortunately, there is no test of any kind that can resolve the question of whether we are in the Matrix. I'm really at a loss to know whether reality or realities are contrived. Like you I say it doesn't matter. But saying it doesn't matter is not the same as knowing there is only one reality and that it is not contrived.

[Sidhe747]

If there is no discernible difference, then there is no difference.

What does it mean to say that reality is a Matrix-like illusion if that illusion mimics reality in every possible way, never deviating from real reality in the tiniest bit?

It means it doesn't matter what pill you take blue or red, they both have the same effect.


What possible meaning could "Matrix-like" have if it doesn't distinguish between some other state of affairs?

You mean the real world?


Frankly, I don't care if we live in a Matrix world, if there is no escape from it. What difference does it make?I should have been clearer. It's all relative. I meant that for use who are in THIS world it would be indiscernible whether it was real or Matrix. For the creators of the Matrix however, the two worlds would be easily discernible.

If we have free will all the difference in the world.


But like you I really don't care either way. Also, when I'm asleep and dreaming, it doesn't matter to me in that world if it is real. It seems real and I usually never even question its reality while in the dream. I just seem to be content in whatever reality I find myself.

Solipsism is pointless.


The real world is complete by definition.Fine, but doesn't Heisenberg's uncertainty principle at least suggest that whether the real world is complete or not, we can never know?

As complete as its going to get


No, that's option b: a semantic ploy. You've defined reality as "that which exists in the mind." This does not win the argument for you; it simply causes us to ask, "OK... what do you call that stuff that doesn't exist in the mind?" You're just changing the meaning of words instead of focusing on the point of the discussion.Um well yeah, definitions are indeed semantics, but I intended no ploy. I'm merely presenting a reasonable definition that takes the observer into account. I realize, as I have pointed out a number of times already, that something still exists even when I or you are unaware of it. But any definition of reality that ignores experience is at best partial and at worst meaningless.

Reality is real, and though is in the mind. Thus I think therefore I am.


So try it yourself. Give me a definition of reality that makes absolutely no reference to sentience, either directly or implied.

God


The position that reality is knowable, at least in approximation, and that we can determine which approximations are better than others, is my side of the argument, not yours. I think you got confused there. :DYou are essentially saying that we manage to survive in the world by possessing some amount of knowledge. That's not even interesting, since all organisms that exist must approximate the world to some degree.

Materialism


Are you saying that since humans can produce a much finer detailed approximations than, say, monkeys can, that this entitles us to the claim that we know reality?

pi is = 3.14159265 to 8 decimal places for example.


Let me suggest that humans are not the supreme intelligence in the universe, or that at least it seems quite possible to me that there are things that we simply cannot sense and thus ever know. The world might well be infinitely more layered than we know about.

No I am. :D


I just can't see how this helps your side.

I am on the dark side.


You know those other universes the physicists talk about? They don't matter. They cannot, by definition, have any impact whatsoever on our universe. Ergo, their non-existence or existence is completely and utterly irrelevant.Again, it's all relevant. I agree that it doesn't matter to us. Nevertheless, the question of other worlds remains an open one and your bat test does not help us resolve the question.

MWI


You should conclude that it's time to back away from the crack pipe.Naw. That all happened back when I was about 5 or 6. I didn't know what drugs were at the time.

Crack is passé


It's rare that you meet an honest-to-goodness dualist these days. It's even rarer that you see the old TV argument.

As rare as me waking up anyway.


I'm not sure it would be profitable for me to explain to you why the TV argument utterly fails to defend dualism. Do you think that would be a good use of my time?Do whatever you like with your time. I'm not making a dualist argument in any case. The TV is simply an argument to show that correlation is insufficient to determine causation. I'm probably just as much a believer that consciousness is a product of the brain as you are. However, since when did a person's beliefs constitute knowledge?

Because TV is the idiot box, and it is like a drug, ie opium.


If you prove that consciousness is a product of a brain, you'll be the first.

It's called materialist monism


Using words in non-standard ways does not equate to making an argument.That's true. But ignoring new ways to look at the world is not a great position either.

Cartesian dualism is a waste of time.


I thought it was clear from my comments that I believe mathematics to be an approximation derived from the real world.So how exactly are these approximations going to be different in the Matrix? How is using a bat going to be different in the Matrix? You avoided the implication of this question above. Either deal with it or concede the uselessness of your bat test to prove anything.

An approximation to the natural laws, which it approaches assymptotically.


Look, if all you have been saying is that idealists (like far left liberals and far right conservatives) need the bat test; I wholeheartedly agree. But I'm under the impression you think it proves something about reality.

Deism.


As far as I'm concerned you and I are probably pretty close in how we see reality. But this is philosophy where we get to set aside pragmatics and engage ideas on their own merits. Look, you'd think you win every argument with pragmatics. But it would be the same case in the Matrix as well. Pragmatics would win. But really, what would be the point of existing in a reality that you were not convinced it was real and the only reality? But unfortunately, there is no test of any kind that can resolve the question of whether we are in the Matrix. I'm really at a loss to know whether reality or realities are contrived. Like you I say it doesn't matter. But saying it doesn't matter is not the same as knowing there is only one reality and that it is not contrived.

Pragmatism defines how we approach life, reality, morals et al.

[Yahzi]

Fine, but doesn't Heisenberg's uncertainty principle at least suggest that whether the real world is complete or not, we can never know?
I don't know what you mean by "complete" in this sense.

Give me a definition of reality that makes absolutely no reference to sentience, either directly or implied.
"All that exists are atoms and the void. All else is opinion." - Democritus

If you prove that consciousness is a product of a brain, you'll be the first.
That's been well proven for a very long time. The only question left is how.

BTW, arguing that consciousness is not a product of brain is, in fact, making an argument about dualism.

Either deal with it or concede the uselessness of your bat test to prove anything.
What the bat test proves is that matter trumps mind.

But unfortunately, there is no test of any kind that can resolve the question of whether we are in the Matrix. I'm really at a loss to know whether reality or realities are contrived. Like you I say it doesn't matter. But saying it doesn't matter is not the same as knowing there is only one reality and that it is not contrived.
Yes, it is the same. When I say it doesn't matter, I am saying it is a meaningless question. It is like asking how many corners a circle has. The question itself, while conforming to syntax, does not carry any semantic weight.

If reality is indistinguishable from reality, then it is reality. The gap between indistinguishable is zero. A thing that is indistinguishable from another thing is the same thing.

[Febble]

I agree with Yahzi, Rex and Preno.

Which is weird.

[JamesBannon]

No. Ontology is only part of philosophy. What philosophy is really about is making sense of things.
90% of Philosophy is an answer, or, rather, pretends to be an answer, to a question no-one asked.

[JamesBannon]

I agree with Yahzi, Rex and Preno.

Which is weird.

The world is weird! Welcome to reality ;)

[Quizalufagus]

No. Ontology is only part of philosophy. What philosophy is really about is making sense of things.
90% of Philosophy is an answer, or, rather, pretends to be an answer, to a question no-one asked.

How so? Examples, please.

[RexT]

I don't know what you mean by "complete" in this sense.I mean that our knowledge of the world is incomplete.

Give me a definition of reality that makes absolutely no reference to sentience, either directly or implied. "All that exists are atoms and the void. All else is opinion." - DemocritusDemocritus contradicts himself. He first claims to have listed all that exists, yet he then goes on to list something else, opinion. And in doing so he unwittingly acknowledges sentience.

What are atoms and the void but themselves mere definitions of particular experiences had by particular sentient beings? They are nothing in themselves. They are lines drawn, (arbitrarily I might add) a way to treat nature as if it were really discrete in some way or some part. But Heisenberg's uncertainty principle suggests that nature is not discrete in any way or any part.

Your definition of reality, or rather Democritus', is self-contradictory, arbitrary, and does not manage to separate itself from sentience.

A complete definition of reality must include sentience. Democritus did unwittingly include sentience, but contradicted himself. For a sentient being to exist a material world must also exist. Notice that even in dreams there is a material world in which the dreamer finds himself or herself. In my dreams, at least, the laws that govern the physics of whatever material world I find myself are usually the same but occasionally different from those of the so-called real world. Otherwise, it would be almost impossible to distinguish one world from the next.

Would you like to try again?

If you prove that consciousness is a product of a brain, you'll be the first.That's been well proven for a very long time. The only question left is how.No it hasn't. A theory of mind exists that assumes that it is matter that is primary. But this is not proof just because a theory exists. Other theories have mind as primary. So what?

BTW, arguing that consciousness is not a product of brain is, in fact, making an argument about dualism.Not necessarily. Not as I intend it. First, what is consciousness? You assume it is a product of a brain, and you have a theory you test using correlations only. But intelligent theories also exist that posit mind as primary. The same correlations would still be expected. So these correlations are not sufficient to decide which is primary and which epiphenomenal.

Consciousness might just be the ground of all being, which Eastern philosophies assume.

What the bat test proves is that matter trumps mind.How does it do that?

But unfortunately, there is no test of any kind that can resolve the question of whether we are in the Matrix. I'm really at a loss to know whether reality or realities are contrived. Like you I say it doesn't matter. But saying it doesn't matter is not the same as knowing there is only one reality and that it is not contrived.Yes, it is the same. When I say it doesn't matter, I am saying it is a meaningless question. It is like asking how many corners a circle has. The question itself, while conforming to syntax, does not carry any semantic weight.Well, it might be meaningless for us to ask the question, but I don't think it is fair to compare it to square circles and such. The difference is that in the case of reality, its meaninglessness might be on account of missing data that is forever beyond our reach, while in the case of square circles its meaninglessness derives from a contradiction.

If reality is indistinguishable from reality, then it is reality. The gap between indistinguishable is zero. A thing that is indistinguishable from another thing is the same thing.No. I could devise a test such that you could not distinguish two things that I the tester know are not the same. The trick is to limit the amount of data that you have access to.

The world in which we find ourselves is at least a world where some amount of data is inaccessible to us who live in it. It might yet be possible that an advanced being, a god to us, has put us in this world and has made us believe it is real by denying us access to data, but if we had the same data we could free ourselves.

[Yahzi]

I mean that our knowledge of the world is incomplete.

Sure - but that is not a statement about reality. Merely a statement about our knowledge of it.

Democritus contradicts himself. He first claims to have listed all that exists, yet he then goes on to list something else, opinion.
He meant "opinion" in the sense of "not factual."

Obviously his statement requires some interpretation. He is not asserting that people or frogs do not exist. He is asserting that people and frogs are made from matter and the void. Similarly he would assert that opinions (and the sentience that holds them) are also constructed from matter.

But Heisenberg's uncertainty principle suggests that nature is not discrete in any way or any part.
No, it doesn't. Uncertainty is not incompatible with QM.

A complete definition of reality must include sentience.
Now you are asserting what you are purporting to argue for.

Democritus' definition accounts for sentience; but that does not mean that sentience is necessary to reality.

No it hasn't. A theory of mind exists that assumes that it is matter that is primary. But this is not proof just because a theory exists. Other theories have mind as primary. So what?

The argument that brain causes mind is the argument against dualism.

But intelligent theories also exist that posit mind as primary.
Theories, yes; but not intelligent ones.

If you were to posit a theory in which mind was primary, and yet every other observable element were identical to the theory in which matter was primary, what you would have done is to posit a theory that is different in name only.

Reference the various arguments disputing how many invisible elves cause rainfall.

Consciousness might just be the ground of all being, which Eastern philosophies assume.
One rather obvious strike against this theory is the staggering quantities of being that have existed for eons longer than any known consciousness. Indeed, the vast bulk of matter in the universe - surely a number so close to 100% as to be nigh incalculable - is utterly unconcerned, untouched, or even unobserved by conscious minds.

What the bat test proves is that matter trumps mind.How does it do that?
Try it and see. :D I assure you, you will be in for an illuminating experience.

No. I could devise a test such that you could not distinguish two things that I the tester know are not the same. The trick is to limit the amount of data that you have access to.
When I say "indistinguishable," I mean in principle, not merely in practice.

[RexT]

Sorry, Yahzi. I meant to respond to your last post. I started a couple of posts, but never finished. When I get time I will return to this topic. If I don't, just wanted to say that I have enjoyed the conversation.

[Worldtraveller]

I just want to know if Yahzi has gotten RexT to agree to submit to the baseball bat test yet? I wanna be the first to volunteer to administer it. :D

[Yahzi]

I just want to know if Yahzi has gotten RexT to agree to submit to the baseball bat test yet? I wanna be the first to volunteer to administer it. :D
No, no, no. The Test only works if you administer it to yourself.

If someone else administers it, it's called "fascism."

:D