6 ms·

>But I am only convinced of this fact because I have experienced it independently >In other words, I am more certain of the fact that your comment exists >So,

>But I am only convinced of this fact because I have experienced it independently >In other words, I am more certain of the fact that your comment exists >So, the physical world is a much more believable explanation than Phrasing all of these in terms of what you believe and what you are convinced/certain of, instead of in terms of what absolutely is, makes my point for me. You didn't even realize you were talking in terms of you getting me to agree over what to believe rather than some objective nature of things indifferent to my opinion. That's how deep seated this is in the way brains and consciousness work. >I would be much less shocked than if I found out my own senses or memory deceived me. You even phrased the discussion of your own sensory perception in terms of messages. In this case messages from your own senses. And you personified them too, treating them as conscious enough to lie to you. >I know for sure I exist in some sense... and I believe to a lesser degree that other agents have similar experiences to mine. You're already agreeing with my axioms. I know I exist. No matter what argument I am making, it must exist in words and there must be a "you" I am trying to convince (even when I'm trying to convince myself). It is impossible to form an argument which rejects these axiomatic truths, for the moment you try you've already used words and already addressed "me" thus affirming the existence of these three things. Since the existence of "you", "me" and "this" are intrinsic to anything you might try to argue, we should take their existence as axioms. What can be argued from axioms which are irrefutable by the nature of argumentation itself? Starting with just the existence of the arguers and their arguments, can they argue for the existence of anything more? If not, what else do they need to assume?

tsimionescu 4y ago
Phrasing is irrelevant. My senses are not little people talking to me about what they perceive, they are sensing organs connected to the brain. Saying that they "lie" is just a twist of the phrase so that I avoid something more unwieldy, like "my sense organs perceive the world incorrectly because of some defect". > Starting with just the existence of the arguers and their arguments, can they argue for the existence of anything more? If not, what else do they need to assume? No, you can't argue the world into being from these axioms. They could probably invent logic and mathematics, but nothing of the natural sciences can be discovered without the senses.
- IIAOPSW 4y ago
  >No, you can't argue the world into being from these axioms. They could probably invent logic and mathematics, but nothing of the natural sciences can be discovered without the senses. It seems contradictory to admit they could invent math and logic, but then reject that they could go one step further and rig that understanding of math into and understanding of physics. I'll admit without some corpus of data to understand the motivation for constructing physics is tenuous. But the question was about the principle of if they could and if you're granting me math I don't see any obstacle left. >Phrasing is irrelevant. My senses are not little people talking to me about what they perceive Sure maybe your senses aren't actually little people, but if you've already evolved a social reasoning / grunting system that only knows how to talk about people, why not convert that into a system for reasoning / grunting about everything by imagining everything as little people. It might not be literally true, but its a useful fiction. Its a fiction that lets us hack "conversational reality consciousness" into "physical reality consciousness". The difficulty in twisting the phrase differently is supportive of this hypothesis.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    > It seems contradictory to admit they could invent math and logic, but then reject that they could go one step further and rig that understanding of math into and understanding of physics. I'll admit without some corpus of data to understand the motivation for constructing physics is tenuous. But the question was about the principle of if they could and if you're granting me math I don't see any obstacle left. The problem with math is that math can describe any possible universe, and there is no way to choose until you confront it with the real world. Nothing in math prevents the world from having 1 dimension of time and 1 of space, for example. Nothing in math prevents the electron from being much larger than the proton, or the existence of solitary quarks or anything else. So I would grant you that the world of talking agents could describe our physical world through math, but they could also imagine any other physical world, and they would have no way to choose one.

tsimionescu 4y ago

Phrasing is irrelevant. My senses are not little people talking to me about what they perceive, they are sensing organs connected to the brain. Saying that they "lie" is just a twist of the phrase so that I avoid something more unwieldy, like "my sense organs perceive the world incorrectly because of some defect". > Starting with just the existence of the arguers and their arguments, can they argue for the existence of anything more? If not, what else do they need to assume? No, you can't argue the world into being from these axioms. They could probably invent logic and mathematics, but nothing of the natural sciences can be discovered without the senses.

IIAOPSW 4y ago
>No, you can't argue the world into being from these axioms. They could probably invent logic and mathematics, but nothing of the natural sciences can be discovered without the senses. It seems contradictory to admit they could invent math and logic, but then reject that they could go one step further and rig that understanding of math into and understanding of physics. I'll admit without some corpus of data to understand the motivation for constructing physics is tenuous. But the question was about the principle of if they could and if you're granting me math I don't see any obstacle left. >Phrasing is irrelevant. My senses are not little people talking to me about what they perceive Sure maybe your senses aren't actually little people, but if you've already evolved a social reasoning / grunting system that only knows how to talk about people, why not convert that into a system for reasoning / grunting about everything by imagining everything as little people. It might not be literally true, but its a useful fiction. Its a fiction that lets us hack "conversational reality consciousness" into "physical reality consciousness". The difficulty in twisting the phrase differently is supportive of this hypothesis.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  > It seems contradictory to admit they could invent math and logic, but then reject that they could go one step further and rig that understanding of math into and understanding of physics. I'll admit without some corpus of data to understand the motivation for constructing physics is tenuous. But the question was about the principle of if they could and if you're granting me math I don't see any obstacle left. The problem with math is that math can describe any possible universe, and there is no way to choose until you confront it with the real world. Nothing in math prevents the world from having 1 dimension of time and 1 of space, for example. Nothing in math prevents the electron from being much larger than the proton, or the existence of solitary quarks or anything else. So I would grant you that the world of talking agents could describe our physical world through math, but they could also imagine any other physical world, and they would have no way to choose one.