Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:22 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:12 pmPhenomena exist. Therefore what?

Therefore there is something that is stimulating the existence of the phenomena.

Can you show the logic by which you reach that conclusion?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:26 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:07 pmAh well, no one is expecting you to be whelmed, much less overwhelmed.

Got the feelin' I'm gettin' brushed off.

meh

Well, if you concede that you make decisions based on their emotional impact, you already get the point.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:26 pmAnyway, what about my 2nd question?

Even takin' into account I'm mebbe experiencing a hallucination or simulation, I can still take myself to the local mortuary and open a corpse head with a bone saw. I can poke it with my finger, lick it if I want.

Yes you can, and while I don't personally doubt that is what you might do, though I would advise against, it is, as you acknowledge, possible that the entire underwhelming experience would be an hallucination or simulation.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:40 pmyou already get the point

Not really...*shrug*

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:30 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:22 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:12 pmPhenomena exist. Therefore what?

Therefore there is something that is stimulating the existence of the phenomena.

Can you show the logic by which you reach that conclusion?

Yes. Two messages to you ago, I spelled it out in detail. Did you not read that, or is something not yet clear about it?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:46 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:40 pmyou already get the point

Not really...*shrug*

Well, I won't labour it but all our decisions come down to personal choice. You can attribute that to psychology, but that's the way into the 'You're crazy!' 'No, you are! ' rabbit hole. Or you can say it's an aesthetic choice, which is just a matter of taste.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:49 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:30 pm Can you show the logic by which you reach that conclusion?

Yes. Two messages to you ago, I spelled it out in detail. Did you not read that, or is something not yet clear about it?

The actual logic.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 4:02 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:49 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:30 pm Can you show the logic by which you reach that conclusion?

Yes. Two messages to you ago, I spelled it out in detail. Did you not read that, or is something not yet clear about it?

The actual logic.

That's logic. If there is only one thing "existing," then no-thing "exists." "Existence" requires the distinction of no less than two distinct items or entities. Otherwise, we cannot speak of anything "existing" at all.

I'll try again.

Let's suppose I hand you a piece of white paper. I say, "A dot exists somewhere on this paper; can you find it?"

You try, and try, and try...you subject the paper to bright light. You look through the back side, holding it up to the light. Nothing. You get a blacklight, and run it over the paper. Nothing. You try putting chemicals on it. Nothing shows up....you perform all possible tests...Still nothing.

You come back to me and say, "I don't believe there's a dot on this paper." I say, "Oh, in my view, dots are made of exactly the same things as the paper, and perfectly integrated with all of them, without possibility of distinction."

And you say, "Then you lied: it's all just the paper. No 'dot exists' on it."

And you're quite right.

You say "Phenomena exist." But then you also say, "All is phenomena" (Idealism). I say, "You've claimed that dots exist, but then handed me a blank page. You've made a mistake."

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 4:00 pm

All that aside...

I can't doubt my own existence:

I can doubt the existence of everything else:

Back to my second question...

You say: there are fewer steps needed to argue for mind, so if anything, it's easier.

Even takin' into account I'm mebbe experiencing a hallucination or simulation, I can still take myself to the local mortuary and open a corpse head with a bone saw. Proving there's a brain, or arguing for the existence of a brain, doesn't seem difficult. Mind, though, that's a bird of a different color. So how is it easier to prove or argue for?

-----

Here's an answer: I can easily argue for the existence of mind becuz I have one, or am one, and I can't doubt my own existence. The brain, however, I can't know I have one, so arguing for its existence is harder.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 4:28 pm"Existence" requires the distinction of no less than two distinct items or entities.

Not in the way you argue for.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 4:28 pm Let's suppose I hand you a piece of white paper. I say, "A dot exists somewhere on this paper; can you find it?"

And if I can't, does the paper therefore not exist?
Let's suppose I hand you a quantum field. Much of mainstream contemporary physics is based on the hypothesis that at least one exists. A wave or twist in that field is distinguishable from the field itself. To use your paper analogy; the piece of paper you hand me might not be flat and any curve, twist or fold in the paper is as real as the paper itself.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 4:28 pmYou say "Phenomena exist." But then you also say, "All is phenomena" (Idealism).

No I don't, that's just your hopeless logic. I have already told you that I am not committed to idealism.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 5:11 pmI can easily argue for the existence of mind becuz I have one, or am one, and I can't doubt my own existence. The brain, however, I can't know I have one, so arguing for its existence is harder.

Exactly. We all know we have minds and brains, but when it comes down to the absurdly high bar of philosophical proof, we can't prove it. Oh well. Never mind. Carry on.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 6:40 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 5:11 pmI can easily argue for the existence of mind becuz I have one, or am one, and I can't doubt my own existence. The brain, however, I can't know I have one, so arguing for its existence is harder.

Exactly. We all know we have minds and brains, but when it comes down to the absurdly high bar of philosophical proof, we can't prove it. Oh well. Never mind. Carry on.

I can prove the mind.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 6:41 pmI can prove the mind.

The floor is yours.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 6:40 pm*absurdly high bar

And to understand that is to understand Western Philosophy?

Glad I never wasted my time.

Anyway, thanks...




*insanely high, as is batshit crazy

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 6:46 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 6:40 pm*absurdly high bar

And to understand that is to understand Western Philosophy?

No. It's a bit like saying you understand baseball because you know that some guy has to swing a bat.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 6:43 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 6:41 pmI can prove the mind.

The floor is yours.

Well, we first have to agree that changes are real. Could we agree on that?