Kovacs is like one of those nameless agents in the Matrix movie. He is for the artificiality, but not quite as self-aware as the secular-Jew agent Smith....the latter being the only one named...the one chosen. This Kovacs is that nameless, faceless, protector of the status quo...of the artificiality.
Notice, how this turd, never actually says anything. He only critiques any critique of what he holds near and dear. A superhero of the common and the popular. He stand for....whatever is in fashion...and he despises those who laugh at it.
He attacks, using ideas he is given, not realizing how they apply to him and those he is protecting.
For example: What can be more narcissistic than thinking you deserve something "just because"; just because you were born....just because you are human.... Anyone rejecting this because they have pride, is now the pariah. Anyone ignoring a moron, and his usual bag of tricks, is self-involved. The presumption being that what he says has not been dealt with before...that he "deserves" special attention.
Then he goes into this feminine tactic of pouting....of trying to get you to respond to him, by giving you a dose of your own medicine...like a woman would. When that fails he joins in, as if nothing happened.
To put it into perspective... He goes to another man's house, tells him he is begging for attention, because he is having a party, then sits in the corner, as if he was invited, doubting if the punch is real.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3989 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
One problem with your argument is that it presumes the external world and how it works, including other minds. You casually assume we dream and we know that dreams are merely internal subjective events, for example. So the argument is poisoned fruit built on common ideas about reality, perception, the nature of minds. IOW a bunch of objective ontological assumptions and conclusions.
His real, most immediate problem, is that he is premising himself on his "inner world".
Why and how is he justifying himself, beforehand? This question really attacks the solipsist mindset....
The " inner " world isn't speculative; it's self-evident.
You were wrong earlier..... that, what you just said, is something a christian would say.... "god is self evident"
You still have to justify your claim.
What I mean by " inner world " is subjectivity, qualia, experiences. When I feel pain, is there any doubt that I feel a sensation? No, it's self-evident. With things existing beyond my perceptions, like an objective world, I can doubt because I have no experience of it.
I can't doubt my own existence; " I am conscious, therefore I am ". It's redundant, but you get the picture.
It is not a matter of whether you can doubt to feel your pain...... it is the matter of how you attempt to understand and describe your "pain". What are you describing?
As I mentioned, to begin to describe yourself, to define thyself, immediately destroys solipsism. Because to define thyself is to separate thyself from "the world". It is binary logic. It sets the universe apart as either inner or outer.
Are you inside the universe or outside?
A solipsist cannot imagine both possibilities, but fixates on only one, and falsely presumes him or herself as the center of reality and existence.
It's the same people, who over two thousand years ago, believe the earth to be the center of the universe, or earth the center of gravity, instead of the sun. Geocentricism over heliocentricism. Scientists are against solipsism. A solipsist cannot become a scientist. Since the solipsist cannot think "outside" thyself.
I can't doubt my own existence; " I am conscious, therefore I am ". It's redundant, but you get the picture.
Read Rene Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, then return to me if you still believe you "cannot doubt my own existence".
He was one of the best philosophers of european history. He educated spanish royalty, the Queen of Spain when she was a child, and is very much responsible for the Spanish Empire.
It is not a matter of whether you can doubt to feel your pain...... it is the matter of how you attempt to understand and describe your "pain". What are you describing?
As I mentioned, to begin to describe yourself, to define thyself, immediately destroys solipsism. Because to define thyself is to separate thyself from "the world". It is binary logic. It sets the universe apart as either inner or outer.
Are you inside the universe or outside?
A solipsist cannot imagine both possibilities, but fixates on only one, and falsely presumes him or herself as the center of reality and existence.
It's the same people, who over two thousand years ago, believe the earth to be the center of the universe, or earth the center of gravity, instead of the sun. Geocentricism over heliocentricism. Scientists are against solipsism. A solipsist cannot become a scientist. Since the solipsist cannot think "outside" thyself.
The world, in this context, is the perception of externality. But, really, the perceived world could be akin to a perceived external world in a dream. How do we know, for sure, that it remains there?
I define myself as consciousness/mind.
edit: I'm deciding to rephrase this last bit. I do believe that I am part of an objective existence, therefore I suppose you could say I'm inside of the universe. But I don't know if this objective-world exists for sure. The only sure existence that I know of is myself.
Last edited by Erik on Mon Jul 07, 2014 3:32 pm; edited 2 times in total
Consider that existence is you, not you are existent.
Consider that you are the result of existence, not existence the result of you.
Consider that you obey natural laws, natural laws do not obey you.
If you cannot reverse your perception then you cannot "escape" your solipsism.
Your mind is closed, not open. You are unwilling to acknowledge the existence of people as objects.
Solipsism is defined as absolute subjectivity. You cannot imagine yourself as an object, by definition of solipsism.
For example, a rock has mass. And a human has mass. Mass obeys gravitational laws and mechanics of force. Jump off a cliff and you will fall down, perhaps die of a long drop. The solipsist believes he/she can fly, convinced herself of this. So she jumps, believing herself a bird, or magical. She dies.
Consider that existence is you, not you are existent.
Consider that you are the result of existence, not existence the result of you.
Consider that you obey natural laws, natural laws do not obey you.
If you cannot reverse your perception then you cannot "escape" your solipsism.
Your mind is closed, not open. You are unwilling to acknowledge the existence of people as objects.
Solipsism is defined as absolute subjectivity. You cannot imagine yourself as an object, by definition of solipsism.
For example, a rock has mass. And a human has mass. Mass obeys gravitational laws and mechanics of force. Jump off a cliff and you will fall down, perhaps die of a long drop. The solipsist believes he/she can fly, convinced herself of this. So she jumps, believing herself a bird, or magical. She dies.
This is how solipsism is refuted, finally.
There's a problem with what you wrote. You said, " consider existence is you " and then " Consider that you are the result of existence".
A false dichotomy.
Just because the " laws of physics " have been consistent, that doesn't mean they can't change. If I jump off a cliff, I expect myself to fall based on patterns. But this isn't proof of objective forces, or objectivity. It's just proof of consistency.
I can't imagine myself as an "objective-thing" because all of my experiences are subjective. I've never had an experience with objective things in an objective world. It's like trying to imagine a color you've never seen before.
Maybe you're a dog dreaming you're a human being, or maybe you're a rock dreaming you're a human being. You object, you say, how could a rock dream? I say how do you know a rock can't dream, maybe we're just too stupid to realize it's not a contradiction for a rock to dream. Just as sensation could be duped, logic could be duped, so that 2 + 2 only appears to be 4, when in actuality, it's 8, or 8000. In order to affirm yourself as a conscious being with thoughts, feelings and sensations, you need memories, a past on which to base your thoughts on. If your sensations can't be trusted, then perhaps your memories are faulty, and your logic, not referring to anything other than themselves. Is there any subjectivity present in labeling yourself a conscious being? Why do you even feel the need to label yourself as such, is that something purely objective, or is it too a product of your values, your peculiar cognition, your language, your need to say I am x and not y, at this particular junction in (your) existence? Where is the line between subject and object? Your consciousness could also be an illusion, a byproduct of atoms and void, bouncing up against one another, purely illusory, like Aeon is alluding to. Where does object begin and subject end? Do the objects of our thinking move independently of our thinking of them, or the objects of our feeling? Is it a case of black/white, or is it a spectrum?
Maybe you're a dog dreaming you're a human being, or maybe you're a rock dreaming you're a human being. You object, you say, how could a rock dream? I say how do you know a rock can't dream, maybe we're just too stupid to realize it's not a contradiction for a rock to dream. Just as sensation could be duped, logic could be duped, so that 2 + 2 only appears to be 4, when in actuality, it's 8, or 8000. In order to affirm yourself as a conscious being with thoughts, feelings and sensations, you need memories, a past on which to base your thoughts on? If your sensations can't be trusted, then perhaps your memories are faulty, and your logic, they don't refer to anything other than themselves. Is there any subjectivity present in labeling yourself a conscious being? Why do you even feel the need to label yourself as such, is that something purely objective, or is it too a product of your values, your peculiar cognition, your language, your need to say I am x and not y, at this particular junction in (your) existence? Where is the line between subject and object? Your consciousness could also be an illusion, a byproduct of atoms and void, bouncing up against one another, purely illusory, like Aeon is alluding to. Where does object begin and subject end? Do the objects of our thinking move independently of our thinking of them, or the objects of our feeling? Is it a case of black/white, or is it a spectrum?
Yes, things can get very weird with solipsism, real fast. There are numerous possibilities, but I stick to what is self-evident.
How would consciousness be an illusion? How could consciousness not be real when I am it? It's blatant, self-evident. Am I, really, not aware right now? Am I not experiencing right now?
Maybe you're a dog dreaming you're a human being, or maybe you're a rock dreaming you're a human being. You object, you say, how could a rock dream? I say how do you know a rock can't dream, maybe we're just too stupid to realize it's not a contradiction for a rock to dream. Just as sensation could be duped, logic could be duped, so that 2 + 2 only appears to be 4, when in actuality, it's 8, or 8000. In order to affirm yourself as a conscious being with thoughts, feelings and sensations, you need memories, a past on which to base your thoughts on? If your sensations can't be trusted, then perhaps your memories are faulty, and your logic, they don't refer to anything other than themselves. Is there any subjectivity present in labeling yourself a conscious being? Why do you even feel the need to label yourself as such, is that something purely objective, or is it too a product of your values, your peculiar cognition, your language, your need to say I am x and not y, at this particular junction in (your) existence? Where is the line between subject and object? Your consciousness could also be an illusion, a byproduct of atoms and void, bouncing up against one another, purely illusory, like Aeon is alluding to. Where does object begin and subject end? Do the objects of our thinking move independently of our thinking of them, or the objects of our feeling? Is it a case of black/white, or is it a spectrum?
Yes, things can get very weird with solipsism, real fast. There are numerous possibilities, but I stick to what is self-evident.
How would consciousness be an illusion? How could consciousness not be real when I am it? It's blatant, self-evident. Am I, really, not aware right now? Am I not experiencing right now?
To a being a million times more conscious than yourself, you might appear to have the consciousness of a billiard ball (no offense, I would appear that way to such a being of course (laughs).
Define consciousness. Is the word itself objective, or is it just something your culture has brainwashed you into thinking you need? Perhaps you could come up with a better word, or a string of words, or perhaps silence/experience itself would better define you than any word you could come up with, within the English language, or without.
Is it possible labeling your experience as consciousness/self is dumb, and only appears as smart? Is everything happening independently of me, involuntarily, or is nothing happening independently of me, voluntarily?
Last edited by Divergense on Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
Define consciousness. Is the word itself objective, or is it just something your culture has brainwashed you into thinking you need? Perhaps you could come up with a better word, or a string of words, or perhaps silence/experience itself would better define you than any word you could come up with, within the English language, or without.
I can't, really, say anything is objective for sure; all I experience, all I know for sure is subjective.
Consciousness, to me, is the basis of reality. I am it.
Aeon, little kids can evolve fear of their fathers abusing them when they come home, but does that mean that every time the father comes home, that he will abuse the child? Like I said, " Consistency ".
Child abuse is comparable to falling off a cliff, an innate fear of height, a reflex, as a counter argument against an objective reality where the universe doesn't give a shit if a human, or any other animal, lives or dies?
It's ironic that you accused me of christian thinking....
A solipsist cannot imagine that the world doesn't revolve around you.
Yet the very idea and existence of hierarchy, proves just the opposite.
A quick question, Are babies born with more authority than their parents? If the answer is no then you'll eventually agree with me about my argument.
Child abuse is comparable to falling off a cliff, an innate fear of height, a reflex, as a counter argument against an objective reality where the universe doesn't give a shit if a human, or any other animal, lives or dies?
It's ironic that you accused me of christian thinking....
A solipsist cannot imagine that the world doesn't revolve around you.
Yet the very idea and existence of hierarchy, proves just the opposite.
A quick question, Are babies born with more authority than their parents? If the answer is no then you'll eventually agree with me about my argument.
Aeon, we have evolved those fears and reflexes based on experience of patterns. But patterns change sometimes.
I don't imagine that the objective world revolves around me ( If it even exists ). I claim that my experiences revolve around me; they are relative to me.
I've had dreams before that I was enslaved to some brutal, draconian Viking bersker. He locked me up in the dungeon of his ship. There was a hierarchy in the dream; I was the slave, he was the master. But the dream was an emanation of my mind, no?
Parents have more power over their babies.
Last edited by Erik on Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
No, instincts and reflexes are not based on experiences.
For example, a young child will touch a hot stove, burning his or her hand. The child has an instinct, a reflex to recoil from that searing pain. Genes encode these reflexes.
The child does not need instructions and education to be told to remove his or her hand.
Yes???
Reflexes, instinct, nature, all resist change since these phenomena represent order. Already established, before your very conception. Genes withhold the instruction of these instincts, the "house of the soul" so to speak.
No, instincts and reflexes are not based on experiences.
For example, a young child will touch a hot stove, burning his or her hand. The child has an instinct, a reflex to recoil from that searing pain. Genes encode these reflexes.
The child does not need instructions and education to be told to remove his or her hand.
Yes???
Reflexes, instinct, nature, all resist change since these phenomena represent order. Already established, before your very conception. Genes withhold the instruction of these instincts, the "house of the soul" so to speak.
Fear of heights is not magical, and not random.
Okay, and I agree; I believe that, theoretically, the objective world is very plausible, makes perfect sense. The problem is in knowing that it exists.
Like I said before, it's conceivable that my experience of life is just a highly complex and organized phantom dream.
I'd like to know how you define knowledge, or knowing.
I'd like to know how you define knowledge, or knowing.
Knowledge is genes, biology, instinct, reflex, nature.
Education and indoctrination, nurturing, comes much later in life. The modernist calls nurture, diplomas, academia, her "knowledge". But nurture is only the extension, the result of nature. Nature is the foundation, the ground, the reality. Nurture is the artifice, the heavens, the skies, the ideal-ity.
I'd like to know how you define knowledge, or knowing.
Knowledge is genes, biology, instinct, reflex, nature.
Education and indoctrination, nurturing, comes much later in life. The modernist calls nurture, diplomas, academia, her "knowledge". But nurture is only the extension, the result of nature. Nature is the foundation, the ground, the reality. Nurture is the artifice, the heavens, the skies, the ideal-ity.
You can only have faith in that which you don't know, have not experienced. You have faith that other planets exist, unseen, and not yet experienced. You believe scientists. You place your faith in their hands, technology, measurements, and theories.
You can only have faith in that which you don't know, have not experienced. You have faith that other planets exist, unseen, and not yet experienced. You believe scientists. You place your faith in their hands, technology, measurements, and theories.
Solipsism is another word describing the mind of God - the absolute Being.
With nothing outside of it, it is totally self-referential and self-determining.
Once more the absolute, the ideal, is contradicted by the world, the real. The sense data, streaming into the brain, forcing it to deal with them, is what "disturbs" the completion.
Only in sheltering systems can one advance towards complete detachment from reality, and living in your head. There is no completion, no finality, but it is an increase in the possibility of remaining more self-referential once you've paid your dues and earned your "right" to live in your head.
This is the often used civility clause, where you are not to disturb the other's delusion, his solipsistic world, if he is to not disturb yours - the social construct. Shared, yet fragmented, delusions.
it expresses itself as an insistence on politeness, and to "agree to disagree", becoming a perspectivism where the world can be interested in this or in that way, once the world itself, received through the senses, has been dismissed as an illusion. to explain it using my usual lexicon, it would be the emphasis on the noemenon, at the expense of the phenomenon, once the phenomenal world is taken care of for us, by automatic, institutional, mechanisms.
The individual cogs in the mechanism need not engage the real world, but only focus on their tasks in relation to the mechanism that does deal with it (specialization). Once the role is learned and has become second nature the brain's energies are freed to engage in whatever form of self-numbing the organism is directed to by its own particular organic hierarchies and the needs it produces.
Cynicism becomes common because nothing said or done ever matters, beyond the casual exchange of stimuli. The organism's role is settled; it's world-view dedicated to fulfilling its role within the mechanics. Everything else is play, entertainment, distraction.
Ideas, having been detached from the world, and a behemoth of an automated mechanization placed between individual organism and the world, the past/nature, are now reversible.
This is how we can have a debate over whether pleasure is a decrease in suffering or if suffering is a decrease in pleasure. The world, as a reference point, an objective standard, is not in use. The experience encased within the machinery, loses contact with the natural world, and all concepts become debatable....a game.
