Draft I

[Atla]

Point to where proof is empirically.

Again, "empirical" has different meanings, not sure which one you mean.

But either way, "Point to where proof is empirically" is word salad. Again, we can't prove any philosophical stance with absolute certainty. "Prove it" means, convincingly argue that one philosophical system is probably more rational, more reasonable that another philosophical system. So argue convincingly for your anti-realist, mind-dependent view.

Proof has many meanings, not sure which one you mean.

Empirical knowledge is knowledge through the senses...start with that.

If no philosophical stance can be proved with absolute certainty that is a philosophical stance and your point implodes.

All points implode in that ultimate sense, that's a beginner non-argument. Now get serious and try to argue for your mind-dependence (you'll fail of course, but at least you'll learn something).

[Eodnhoj7]

Again, "empirical" has different meanings, not sure which one you mean.

But either way, "Point to where proof is empirically" is word salad. Again, we can't prove any philosophical stance with absolute certainty. "Prove it" means, convincingly argue that one philosophical system is probably more rational, more reasonable that another philosophical system. So argue convincingly for your anti-realist, mind-dependent view.

Proof has many meanings, not sure which one you mean.

Empirical knowledge is knowledge through the senses...start with that.

If no philosophical stance can be proved with absolute certainty that is a philosophical stance and your point implodes.

All points implode in that ultimate sense, that's a beginner non-argument. Now get serious and try to argue for your mind-dependence (you'll fail of course, but at least you'll learn something).

You are ignoring what I asked, so I will ask it again in different words: "point to me where the nature of proof is physically".

[Impenitent]

physically? between synapses...

-Imp

[Atla]

Proof has many meanings, not sure which one you mean.

Empirical knowledge is knowledge through the senses...start with that.

If no philosophical stance can be proved with absolute certainty that is a philosophical stance and your point implodes.

All points implode in that ultimate sense, that's a beginner non-argument. Now get serious and try to argue for your mind-dependence (you'll fail of course, but at least you'll learn something).

You are ignoring what I asked, so I will ask it again in different words: "point to me where the nature of proof is physically".

Then explain already what you're actually asking, it's unclear. Anything can be seen as physical, especially if it just means everything that exists. Science for example studies that which exists. Science, neuroscience, psychology have localized the human mind to the human head, they have found that the rest of the world doesn't seem to fundamentally depend on the human mind, especially not on one single mind (Eodnhoj the solipsist's mind). That's as much as these sciences are able to prove a consistent picture. So maybe that's what the "nature" of the empirical proof is that you're asking.

[Eodnhoj7]

All points implode in that ultimate sense, that's a beginner non-argument. Now get serious and try to argue for your mind-dependence (you'll fail of course, but at least you'll learn something).

You are ignoring what I asked, so I will ask it again in different words: "point to me where the nature of proof is physically".

Then explain already what you're actually asking, it's unclear. Anything can be seen as physical, especially if it just means everything that exists. Science for example studies that which exists. Science, neuroscience, psychology have localized the human mind to the human head, they have found that the rest of the world doesn't seem to fundamentally depend on the human mind, especially not on one single mind (Eodnhoj the solipsist's mind). That's as much as these sciences are able to prove a consistent picture. So maybe that's what the "nature" of the empirical proof is that you're asking.

Here is another way of looking at it.

If reality exists outside the mind then point to it without using your mind.

The scientific method is the mind...it is a concept.

[Atla]

You are ignoring what I asked, so I will ask it again in different words: "point to me where the nature of proof is physically".

Then explain already what you're actually asking, it's unclear. Anything can be seen as physical, especially if it just means everything that exists. Science for example studies that which exists. Science, neuroscience, psychology have localized the human mind to the human head, they have found that the rest of the world doesn't seem to fundamentally depend on the human mind, especially not on one single mind (Eodnhoj the solipsist's mind). That's as much as these sciences are able to prove a consistent picture. So maybe that's what the "nature" of the empirical proof is that you're asking.

Here is another way of looking at it.

If reality exists outside the mind then point to it without using your mind.

The scientific method is the mind...it is a concept.

You're like a broken record. Again: just because the mind can't be outside of itself, doesn't mean that it has no outside. This Kantian/Buddhist crap doesn't work on me.

[Eodnhoj7]

Then explain already what you're actually asking, it's unclear. Anything can be seen as physical, especially if it just means everything that exists. Science for example studies that which exists. Science, neuroscience, psychology have localized the human mind to the human head, they have found that the rest of the world doesn't seem to fundamentally depend on the human mind, especially not on one single mind (Eodnhoj the solipsist's mind). That's as much as these sciences are able to prove a consistent picture. So maybe that's what the "nature" of the empirical proof is that you're asking.

Here is another way of looking at it.

If reality exists outside the mind then point to it without using your mind.

The scientific method is the mind...it is a concept.

You're like a broken record. Again: just because the mind can't be outside of itself, doesn't mean that it has no outside. This Kantian/Buddhist crap doesn't work on me.

Nothing really works on you because you don't work on yourself. The only thing you currently offer to the world is being an empty shell of a person. If that is what you want...okay...your life, if that is what you choose to call it.

My questions stand.

[Atla]

Here is another way of looking at it.

If reality exists outside the mind then point to it without using your mind.

The scientific method is the mind...it is a concept.

You're like a broken record. Again: just because the mind can't be outside of itself, doesn't mean that it has no outside. This Kantian/Buddhist crap doesn't work on me.

Nothing really works on you because you don't work on yourself. The only thing you currently offer to the world is being an empty shell of a person. If that is what you want...okay...your life, if that is what you choose to call it.

My questions stand.

You're the empty shell, that's why you hide in solipsism.

[Eodnhoj7]

You're like a broken record. Again: just because the mind can't be outside of itself, doesn't mean that it has no outside. This Kantian/Buddhist crap doesn't work on me.

Nothing really works on you because you don't work on yourself. The only thing you currently offer to the world is being an empty shell of a person. If that is what you want...okay...your life, if that is what you choose to call it.

My questions stand.

You're the empty shell, that's why you hide in solipsism.

Solipsism claims it is one's own mind they exist in, I don't claim mind as my own..how can I when thoughts appear and dissappear without my control?

[Atla]

Nothing really works on you because you don't work on yourself. The only thing you currently offer to the world is being an empty shell of a person. If that is what you want...okay...your life, if that is what you choose to call it.

My questions stand.

You're the empty shell, that's why you hide in solipsism.

Solipsism claims it is one's own mind they exist in, I don't claim mind as my own..how can I when thoughts appear and dissappear without my control?

Sound like you're a fragmented solipsist then.

[Eodnhoj7]

You're the empty shell, that's why you hide in solipsism.

Solipsism claims it is one's own mind they exist in, I don't claim mind as my own..how can I when thoughts appear and dissappear without my control?

Sound like you're a fragmented solipsist then.

"Sounds like" and "are" can be infinitely seperate.