3 ms·

It's interesting that you think the fundamental nature of reality depends on what you find "boring" or not. In any case I disagree that we know nothing. We kn

It's interesting that you think the fundamental nature of reality depends on what you find "boring" or not. In any case I disagree that we know nothing. We know that subjective experience exists. I think it makes sense to start with what we actually know rather than with a bunch of concepts we've invented (like matter) to explain the phenomena we experience. The only basis I see for believing in the reality of these concepts is their apparent consistency and predictability, but even that is largely illusory once you move beyond very simple systems or machines that we've designed to be predictable.

bspammer 4y ago
> It's interesting that you think the fundamental nature of reality depends on what you find "boring" or not. I did not say this, I said the discussion is boring because it’s not falsifiable. We might as well just say fairies are real but not perceivable by humans or any device humans can build. It could be true, but who cares? We’ll never know one way or the other by definition.
- tgflynn 4y ago
  But that example is unlike what we were discussing. If I were making the claim that some completely unknown and unknowable thing exists then your objection would be on point, but that is not what I am doing. What I am doing is challenging your claim that things like matter and brains exist independently of consciousness, because the evidence you have for that claim is tainted by the fact that the evidence itself is known only via conscious experience. In many ways materialism is more like your example about unknowable fairies than anything I have said because ultimately it postulates that there is something called matter that exists independently of consciousness and yet is knowable only through consciousness. That concept of "bare matter" as a thing in itself looks a lot like your unknowable fairies.

bspammer 4y ago

> It's interesting that you think the fundamental nature of reality depends on what you find "boring" or not. I did not say this, I said the discussion is boring because it’s not falsifiable. We might as well just say fairies are real but not perceivable by humans or any device humans can build. It could be true, but who cares? We’ll never know one way or the other by definition.

tgflynn 4y ago
But that example is unlike what we were discussing. If I were making the claim that some completely unknown and unknowable thing exists then your objection would be on point, but that is not what I am doing. What I am doing is challenging your claim that things like matter and brains exist independently of consciousness, because the evidence you have for that claim is tainted by the fact that the evidence itself is known only via conscious experience. In many ways materialism is more like your example about unknowable fairies than anything I have said because ultimately it postulates that there is something called matter that exists independently of consciousness and yet is knowable only through consciousness. That concept of "bare matter" as a thing in itself looks a lot like your unknowable fairies.