Moderation Questions

I think it was Bertrand Russell who supposedly had someone say to him (paraphrasing), "I find solipsism quite convincing; I don't understand why more people aren't solipsists."

It’s hard to actually live your life as a solipsist because a very real delusion would feel exactly like the real world.

But that is also perfectly consistent with solipsism, sadly.

Solipsism hinges on the assumption that your mind is real, which is a big and unnecessary leap of faith.

It commits the same kind of error as scientific realism: It is based on assuming that there is a reality (though in this case it is your mind, not the universe) and that you can know what this reality is like (through experience).

Metaphysics is not that simple. Knowledge and truth are exceptional tools for understanding, modelling and discussing the world as we experience it. However, assuming or concluding what the world actually is like is a very different ballgame where instead of relying on the strengths of knowledge and truth, we quickly bump into their limitations instead.

I assume there is a real world of which i am a tiny part. There is no error of assuming there is a real world

Is your life, the life you are stewarding, real?

I don't think questions like that matter much. You just end up in logical knots while trying to affirm preferences.

In this particular case, the word "real" would dramatically change its meaning depending on the answer, so you can't even reliably compare different answers.

There's no error in you assuming you're a tiny part either, assuming that "part" was another of your typos.

That could be a quality post if we assume it's by someone else and contained different words

I believe it was the late, great Raymond Smullyan who quipped (paraphrasing), "I'm an anti-solipsist; I believe all minds are real except mine."

Do you not think your relationship to reality matters much?

How do you view the relationship between truth and reality?

I've noticed that, when craig talks about topics other than spirituality, his posts are generally straightforward and understandable. For example, when craig complains about how other posters react to him, he isn't ambiguous or unclear. That leads me to believe that craig generally knows what words mean and knows what order to put them in if he wants to be understood.

But when the topic is spirituality, the fog rolls in, he starts talking in circles, and no one really has any clue what he is saying.

That contrast leads me to believe that craig is deliberately vague and confusing when discussing spirituality because he knows his beliefs would not hold up to scrutiny if presented clearly and directly.

Could be but it's also a sign of a lack of common ground and/or difficulty of the topic.

Our minds do not always meet easily. Unlike with childish bullying on the interthingy

Now, have you finally aired all of your grievances about me, or no?

If you don't know, you don't know. Not craig's fault.

AI is currently in a spot of bother because a Scottish judge used it to supply legal citations to support his ruling (in Peggie v NHS Fife) and it turns out the citations are bogus, misleading and worthless because AI just scrapes stuff from wherever and operates on the GIGO principle. (As you'd think anyone who has tried to use it would have noticed.) Mainly the incompetent judge's fault for breaking guidelines and failing to check the original judgments referred to, but also AI's fault.

Stop posting, as your posts are just awful.

No. I think you're weird.

Btw what's up with the forum lately was there some sort of dos attack or something? For a few days it kept timing out and now I keep constantly getting verification delays.

Same here.

Yeah, same. Today I keep getting a page which requires me to verify that I am human by clicking a check box labelled "verify that you are human". I, for one, am sleeping better at night knowing that my favourite forum is protected by this state of the art machine detection mechanism, which is beyond the capabilities of even the most sophisticated AI bot to circumvent.

There’s more than just metaphysical solipsism fyi

edit: actually tame deuces surely knows this so a better thing to say would be “fwiw”

There's a difference between assuming and affirming. "There is [not naught]" is about all I can affirm with certainty. I dont know if 'real' works too well since it's mostly used to contrast illusion.

The 'I am x' only arises with memory. Some severe amnesia patients report complete detachment from their body and thoughts, or more of a depersonalization. Ive had similar experiences with meditation and all I can really claim is that perspective seems more real than normal states. Maybe truthful fits better because I don't doubt it.

I don't affirm anything with certainty about the world. Beyond a sort of descartesian 'thinking therefore something' vague idea.

I assume lots of stuff. I assume it may all be wrong but it's absolute rightness or wrongness that's not the point. It's about whether anything makes better sense to what I assume to be my mind under a different set of assumptions. So far, consciousness and 'why anything' aside, it all seems to be coped with under some rather trivial assumptions.

Affirming your relationship with the real at the level of identity requires making a stand (in faith), and you will invite challenges and tests. Because of this, it is the option of last resort.

Still, it is the only way to truly progress.

I don't believe Son of Man is a person.