I think Bushi simply needs to quaify this statement: "Observations are facts".

Now I think he took a step toward doing that with "observations need no proof only accuracy". But I think coming up with an objective standard for determining "accuracy" is going to be problematic.

And I think that is exactly the basis of why Jeannie says that facts are fundamentally agreements - agreemsnts not necessarily always on the facts themselves, but at least agreements on the standard by which accuracy, and thus the "factualness", is determined.

Also, note that "accuracy" is not absolute. So the involvement of "accuracy" in the determination of fact, would imply that there are "degrees of factualness". That is, some facts are more factual than other facts.

Anyway, I'll leave it to Bushi to get out his Ginsu Knives and slice all that to ribbons. Or get out his Easy Bake oven and combine all the ingredients with some spices and cook it all into a nice palatable meal for everyone. And I'll bring the wine

That’s not the way I would interpret that.

According to what you said (“they do know what it is”), there was no impairment of memory.

So it looks to me like the cutting of the corpus callosum did not affect memory at all. Apparently all it affected was some relationship between a sense perception (sight) and a motor function (speech), which seems reasonable to me since those are both bodily functions.

Also, just a note regarding the idea that memory is localized within the brain (i.e. different memories are stored in different locations) – as I understand it, and unless there has been some contrary findings since then, Dr. Karl Lashley pretty much conclusively refuted that idea about eighty years ago.

Now as I said before, I’m not saying that nothing is “stored” in the brain. The simple fact that connections are made and become persistent could validly be called “storage”. But I don’t believe those persistent connections have anything to do with self-determined analytical thought or memory recall. I think of them as being equivalent to something like a scar – the byproduct of a physilogical reaction to external stimuli.

Let’s see…

First let me clarify something about my philosophy.

The “little man” is me. The “body” is…well…obvious. The “mind” is separate from both. It contains the “file cabinet” for mental image pictures, which includes recordings of perceptions and things that are “imagined”. It is also contains the “computer” that does calculations, comparisons, etc.

And as with any formation gathering system, the information obtained is subject to the limitations of the information gathering system used to obtain and record it.

So to answer your questions, yes, damaged cones in the eyes would affect the image recorded (provided, of course, that the eyes were the system through which the perception was received). And what is actually “seeing” is the “little man” and not the “mind” or the “body”. (Now of course one could say that an eye or a camera is “seeing”, in the sense that it is processing input. But I think you know what I mean when I say that the person is “seeing”, not the camera or the eye.)

Now let me presume to take that a step farther and explain something regarding where I think that is likely to lead…

The “ocular system” is not the only system by which “visual” images can be perceived. An example would be the “visual” perceptions recorded during remote viewing.

I think the discussions about “the universe as a game” (in the Evidence for Designer” thread. Cover that fairly well.

But to summarize it here, the best I can reply is: I don’t know why you chose to have a brain. You’d have to tell me.

Well I agree that any theory looks bad when starting with a diametrically opposed fundamental premise.

And really, I have no problem at all with looking at what you call “the real world” in order to understand how it works. Science is the beast way to do that. That’s the way “the real world” is set up. Gaining an understanding of “the real world” a necessary process in being able to operate within it. No argument at all with that.

On the other hand, I don’t believe that “the real world” is the be-all and end-all of everything.

I agree that it certainly does not explain it to you. But it explains it well enough to me for my requirements. It explains to me why physiology even exists in the first place, which science does not and cannot do.

That may very well be true. I have no way to refute it. So the result is that you assume that the observed brain activity is the processing and I assume that the observed brain activity is a byproduct of the processing. I don’t see any way to go forward from there.

Yes, I think “forgone” is the perfect word for it. So I guess you’ll accept whatever forgone conclusions you feel most comfortable with, and I will accept the one’s I feel most comfortable with.

I don’t have a problem with that.

One could just as well say that your current understanding of the brain is light years behind where you can accept a dualistic view – and getting farther and farther behind because it is intentionally headed in the wrong direction.

I didn’t get it, but I was looking forward it. So if you feel like sending it again I’d appreciate it.

Well personally, I can only say that I have had experiences that indicate to me that thinking goes on without a brain present. And I am perfectly aware that “modern science” would label those experiences as delusions or hallucinations, as it does with virtually any and all “paranormal phenomena”. But to me, that’s simply another example of the dogmatic denial that has been the bane of scientific advancement throughout all of history.

Aw shucks <shuffle>. 'Twarn't nuthin'

I couldn't say what "your spirit" knows. I don;t even know what "your spirit" is.

But I know the smell of dog poo. And since I am "a spirit", then, to phrase it in the third third-person, the spirit that is me knows the smell of dog poo.

We can test that idea and verify it as fact by observing.
Observation is what informs us about that fact.

Are those the right answers?

Shoku said:Interesting commentary. Let me transpose a few things and see what you think.


The problem with atheism is that it stalls your personal growth. You end up a permanent child and the only form of maturity praised is the growing dull enough to admit that you can never know anything.

Unfortunately I see most of this materialism in the same light. What I would really like right now is not for them to go on the defensive about that but look at themselves and see how this "whatever you can or can’t know" stuff is just a way to halt ever having to accept any belief.

There's nothing to be found in what you know or don’t know. To say that's all that matters is to claim that you do not believe anything, and with as much distaste as they seem to have when they claim we're doing that I can only hope that this is eye opening.


In short, “there are two sides to every coin”. It is the refusal to recognize and accept that fact that leads to problems. In fact, it is the refusal to recognize and accept that fact that what makes it impossible to resolve problems. (But that’s a whole subject of it’s own.)

Shoku saidOk, so label the game universe "fictional" or "imaginary" if you want. The label doesn't matter. It doesn't change the nature of the game or the players or the relationship between the players and/or the game.

What matters is the fact that the game does exist and we do play it. And in playing the game we interact - with the game universe directly (or maybe more accurately, indirectly through the player interface) and with other players indirectly according to the rules of the game.

Bottom line is: so what if it's fictional/illusory? Labeling it fictional or illusory doesn't change what it is. (Although it may change one's own attitude or perspective toward it - which may or may not be beneficial depending on the person.)

That kinda leads to the deabte over the semantics and mechanics of "knowledge", which is a whole other topic in and of itself.

But I'm really ok with whatever anyone wants to label anything - just as long as we have agreement on what the labels refer to.

Maybe they're trying to impress each other with their repsective name-calling abilities?

Basically, it operates as a switchboard for routing neural signals. But it doesn't "store" anything - except possibly in the sense that persistent connections could be considered as being "stored" connections.

Let me make a correction to that, which may help avoid future misunderstanding...

And I completely understand how the whole philosophy does not make sense from a materialistic viewpoint, where “self” is a product of [the interaction of components of] the physical universe. The reason it’s so difficult to make sense of is because it starts from the exact opposite position – the physical universe is a product of [the interaction of "selves"].

No problem so far.

Yes it is a sticking point for me. Not because of the conclusions derived from that premise, but because of the premise itself.

Personally, I look at it as there being multiple realities, one for each individual by himself, and one for each combination of individuals that interact with each other.

Think of it kinda like the intersections of sets. Each individual has his own reality. Those are the sets. And each intersection of individual set-realities constitutes an intersection-reality.

True. (Providing that your use of “mind” coincides with what I call “spirit”.)

Starts the reality for that individual, but not for all individuals and not for all “intersction-realities”, which are dependent on two individual realities.

Well, that doesn’t really follow from the viewpoint of my multiple-person, set/intersection-realities premise.

I assume at least one mind exists, but my premise is that multiple minds exist.

True. It is simply postulated out of thin air. (Or maybe induced from observation. But as you say, that is not reliable. Although, it is a very practical assumption.)

Hmmm…. “Laws of Nature” doesn’t really have a very concise meaning from the multiple-realities viewpoint – other than that each reality has it’s own “laws of nature”.

Well, I would say the exact opposite. “What we know” is what constitutes reality.

Not if one considers Naturalism to be simply a philosophy about the “largest intersection-reality”.

Yes, it is definitely the best explanation for that “largest intersection-reality”.

Possibly. But I don’t know that my philosophy has been around for very long.


I have no disagreement with any of the logic here. Only with a couple of the premises, which I addresed.

Now if you would label my philosophy as "solipsism, then so be it. BUt I think there is enough difference from the general view of what consitutes solipsism that doing so would cause some confusion.


In any case, well done Bushi. Very well constructed.

I simply brought up the PEAR research because I accept it as evidence. If you don’t accept it as evidence then fine. We can exclude it from the conversation. I have no problem with that.

But I’m not going to quote all the details here, nor am I going to try to summarize it for you. If you want to know details, here is a link where most of the papers I know of can be foundhttp://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs



Shoku: And when do we ever interact with anything but the body?

Sky: If you consider communicating with someone else as “interacting” with them, then I would say we interact with things other than bodies all the time, if indirectly.

And I would say there is ample evidence of other “direct” interaction, a couple of which I have experienced myself. But then it’s up to you to decide what you want or do not want to accept as evidence. And since you apparently do not accept PEAR findings as evidence, then I assume you would not accept any of the other evidence, so there is no point in bdragging them into the conversation.

So the bottom line is really that I believe what I believe and I’m only telling you what I believe. I cannot force you to accept any evidence whatsoever.

Well since you were the one to first come up with the accusations of “ignoring”, I’ll let you got first. If you want to. But personally, I don’t even consider it worthwhile since I’m not really interested in “debating the debate”. It doesn’t lead anywhere I’m interested in going.

Depending on how you define “morality”. If you define it as “rules of conduct that we agree to abide by” or even “rules of conduct that provide for optimum ‘health and wellbeing for all’” then morals are no more or less “random nonsense” than are rules of the road.

This indicates to me a fundamental misunderstanding. One that is usually the source of much confusion (as it appears to have been throughout this conversation).

We don’t “have” players, we are players. Unless and until that is fully understood, nothing much else in this philosophy will make much sense.

Well, in general I would agree with that, with the clarification that you always have the ability to discover the exploits. But you can’t use them if you haven’t yet discovered what they are and how to use them.

Possible reasons:
1) The exploits had not yet been discovered by anyone
2) Those who did discover them might not have been able to explain them to well enough to enable everyone else to use them (Some of the greatest religious leader in history might fall into this category.)
3) Some might know about the exploits but not want others to know about them, in order to retain an advantage over those who did not know.

You’re right. It’s getting pretty abstract. At some level of detail, all analogies fail to maintain a one-to-one correspondence to the concepts they are intended to represent. Which is what is starting to happen to this one.

For example, the idea that “it takes billions to program the game engine”. That implies that the game is first created, as a self-perpetuating system, and then people “enter into” that system and start playing with the pieces. But actually, it’s more like the rules are agreed upon first, and then the game is created by the interactions of the players. That is, if we differentiate between “the game” and “the rules of the game”, then “the game” itself doesn’t exist until the players start interacting according to “the rules of the game”.

Also, FYI, although I’ve never had the opportunity to work on a modern MMORPG, I’ve played a few. And I was playing and programming computer games since before you were born. So don’t worry about my ability to understand computer games.

Perfect example of different people playing by different rules. While some rules are adhered to by both (e.g. physics and finances), other rules are not. The embezzling CEO plays by the rule “get what you can get while you can get it and screw everyone else”, whereas the people from whom he embezzled play by the rule “trust the people you work with” (or something to that effect.)

So really, he is exploiting his rules, not the rules of others. He is using “screw everyone else” to his advantage. He is not using “trust everyone else” to his advantage.

It would probably look to other players like the character was being played by another person.

Wait.

Who is “they” and who is “us” in that statement?

The player interface can’t make the players do anything. The player interface allows the player to make the character do things.

(And since you brought it up, I might as well stick this in for possible future reference. In this game analogy, the “player interface” could be likened to “the mind” in my philosophy. That doesn’t really relate to anything we’ve talked about yet, but it’s there for future reference and clarification as needed/desired.)

I tend to do the same.

Well, I think what you’re referring to is that one could, for instance. smash a clay pot created by someone else. And in that context, yes, messing up someone else’s creation is possible.

However, that is allowed by the rules of the game. It is part of what makes it a game. I can smash your pots and you can smash mine. And we both have various options that can avoid out pots being smashed. Just like in the game of chess, I can capture your pieces and you can capture mine. But in both cases, it is done so in accordance with other rules, such as “pots can be smashed” and “pieces can be captured”.

It didn’t to me at the time, but as long as we agree, I’m good.

Similar to the reason you don’t give yourself a million bucks, Boardwalk and Park Place with hotels on them, all the railroads, all the utilities, and someone to roll the dice, move the token, and decide what to buy and sell for you, when playing Monopoly. If you did that, then there would hardly be any point in playing the game at all. In fact, you wouldn’t even really be playing the game.


Now to address all these arguments in general, they all seem to be oriented on the idea that the player is somehow forced to play a game he doesn’t want to play. But that’s identifying the player with the character. Yes, the character has no choice. In fact, attributing the power of choice to a character is as nonsensical as attributing the power of choice to a car. It has no volition with which to choose. It is a purely mechanistic, stimulus-response construct.

And I completely understand how the whole philosophy does not make sense from a materialistic viewpoint, where “self” is a product of the physical universe. The reason it’s so difficult to make sense of is because it starts from the exact opposite position – the physical universe is a product of self.

And so we're back to where I was about a dozeon posts ago - "Apparently, you and I have very different ideas about what consititutes solopsism."

As I understand it, solipsism rejects the idea that anything other then self exists. And since I believe that things other than self exist, I don't see it as fitting under the label of solipsism.

I don't recall that particular question being asked, nor do I remember "balking" at it. So I can't really say why it appeard that I balked at it.

Well first off, remember that I don't believe the picture is stored in the brain.

So, simply put, the picture is viewed by deciding to view it. That's all there is to it. Just the same as you would think of a "human being" deciding to look at a painting. There is nothing that "shows" the painting. It is just there (having been created and hung there previously). One decides to look at it or not. And one views a spcific picture out of many by simply deciding on which picture to view.

I guess you could say that the mind (not the brain) "shows" the pictures by painting them and hanging them for viewing. But that's the closest thing to "showing the picture" that the mind does.

A very good presentation of your basic materialist/mechanistic view.

But I’m not convinced. The main reason is illustrated by my disagreement with this …

When I close my eyes and look at a mental image picture of a cat, I’m not looking at me, I’m looking at the picture. There is “me” and there is “picture”. I am what’s looking at the picture.

I see no reason to “move beyond that” and simply discard, out of hand, the fact that it is an accurate description of the situation.

But if Dr. Dennet wishes to do so, then he’s perfectly welcome to.

I guess the most I can say is that it just doesn’t explain what I have observed and experienced to my satisfaction.

Well that's not anywhere even close to an accurate description of what I'm talking about

That would be exactly equivalent to saying "As just characters without knowledge flow from the player into the players the players are nothing more than an illusion."

I doesn't make sense to me. And I honestly don't know how to repohrase it so that it does makes sense.

I guess one might say that, from the perspective of the character, the player is just an illusion. Or from the perspective of the player the character is an illusion.

But in any case, the simple fact that the game involves other players removes it from the realm of solipsism.

And there’s a good example of what you are ignoring:

1) The fact that your estimation of the randomity of the electronic RNG is totally irrelevant to the experiments. What is relevant is that it provides a verifiable baseline to compare against, which baseline is perfectly valid within the parameters and purposes of the experiment.
2) The fact that the RNG is only one of several devices use in the experiments.
3) The reference to the remote viewing experiments.
4) The actual answer I gave to the question you asked.

So in fact, you have ignored virtually everything I said in my response.

Thus, as far as I’m concerned, your accusations of ignoring things are hollow at best.

But in any case, you may completely ignore the relevance of the PEAR experiments if you wish and just reply to the answer I gave to your question – or not. It’s up to you.

I don't like this answer. There are two things you could be doing here.
A: agreeing with me and dropping the subject.
B: disagreeing with me here by implying that those aren't the rules for this game but not giving any kind of explanation for that.Ok, let me “build back”.

The basic premise is that the players of the game are also the creators of the game. Thus, the player-creators are the one’s who make and/or agree to the rules that they will play by. So if one decides that backups/restores are allowed, then that is a rule the creator of that rule will play by - if he so chooses.

By stating a hypothetical situation (stealing hubcaps) and asserting rule (backup/restore or new character) you’ve simply created a rule that one might play by.

So I was simply acknowledging the fact that the hypothetical situation you presented does not conflict with any of the premises.

Once anybody figures out how to exploit the system to do these things without getting caught word travels fast.Well, first of all, in this particular case, it hasn’t, which belies that statement. (Unless you’re asserting that no one has every figured out how to exploit the system because word hasn’t traveled fast – which, if I understand correctly, is formally called “arguing from ignorance”.)

Secondly, since “the system” is of one’s own creation (or by one’s own agreement with other’s creations), then “exploiting the system” is really only exploiting one’s own creation or one’s agreements with others. I.e. “exploiting the system” is really only exploiting oneself. (Such things as “Karma” have expressed this same concept.)

Don’t make the mistake of identifying characters with players.

No, a player cannot be “stupider” than a because a character(body/car) has no intelligence to speak of. It operates on a strictly mechanistic, stimulus-response basis. The intelligence rests with the player/self/driver, not the character/body/car.

Which is exactly what I did in the succeeding paragraph and which you seem to have chosen to completely ignore. (Or more accurately “quote mine out”.)

Again, remember that the players are also the creators. So the only “dicking up the game” possible is to “dick up” one’s own agreements with other players. Unless you consider changing one’s own creation to be dicking up one’s own creation. But no one can prevent that, since it isone’s own creation.

Again, referring back to the premise that the game is a co-creation of the players, the rules are created and/or agreed to by the creator/players. So the only thing that can be “broken” are the agreements. What you are referring to as “breaking the rules”, I would describe more accurately as “breaking the agreement to abide by the rules”. But the rules themselves are simply the creations of the players. From the perspective of a single player, excluding any agreements with other players, the rules are not “broken”, they are simply “changed”.