The point about “are we in a simulation?” is not that we are (setting aside the whole technological singularity thing for the moment), but that we could be. The common sense thing only says that we’re more likely not, but does not at all say that we definitely are not. “Could be” still remains.
Moore’s point is that we shouldn’t let the inability to eliminate that “what if,” which was specifically designed to be non-disprovable, actually affect ontology. That problems and questions created by philosophers basically just to stump philosophical methods should be all but ignored since, by design, there clearly can’t be an answer except that one thing is by far most likely, and the other thing cannot matter because we can’t prove or act upon it or treat it as anything other than a manufactured source of doubt/skepticism.
It is still important to understand that the only thing which can be known about reality with complete certainty is:
There is isness. Reality exists.
We cannot know with certainty the nature of that reality. We can only know our perception, and even if we accept that we are perceiving reality (which is most likely, but not necessarily, true), our perceptions of that reality are incomplete and flawed. That’s a pretty important part of the nature of being.
Objective reality doesn’t exist, and that’s a good thing, because it means our entire universe is subjective, and therefore, malleable to our perceptions. It means that with a big enough idea and a mind on which to balance it, we can move the earth.
That’s because you’re afraid to have an intellectually honest discussion with someone who disagrees with you. It’s easier to pretend people who disagree with you don’t exist.
The fact that the self is an illusion is not a new idea. Surely you’ve heard of it. But you’d rather pretend that I don’t believe in it than to have an actual conversation considering its implications.
Western neurotypicals are so very concerned with ego. It’s unhealthy.
Dude. I’m always looking for a challenge. But you aren’t being a challenge— you’re being obnoxious. Tone it down a notch, and then maybe we can both respect and listen to each other, and entertain some philosophical ideas that we might not ultimately accept, like true intellectuals.
Can you show me a moment of this discussion when I was “obnoxious” from before you insulted me? Cause I wanted to have an actual discussion, and you’re saying you do as well, but what you’re saying would be hard to believe if you were the first one to throw an insult in place of a discussion.
The point about “are we in a simulation?” is not that we are (setting aside the whole technological singularity thing for the moment), but that we could be. The common sense thing only says that we’re more likely not, but does not at all say that we definitely are not. “Could be” still remains.
Moore’s point is that we shouldn’t let the inability to eliminate that “what if,” which was specifically designed to be non-disprovable, actually affect ontology. That problems and questions created by philosophers basically just to stump philosophical methods should be all but ignored since, by design, there clearly can’t be an answer except that one thing is by far most likely, and the other thing cannot matter because we can’t prove or act upon it or treat it as anything other than a manufactured source of doubt/skepticism.
It is still important to understand that the only thing which can be known about reality with complete certainty is:
We cannot know with certainty the nature of that reality. We can only know our perception, and even if we accept that we are perceiving reality (which is most likely, but not necessarily, true), our perceptions of that reality are incomplete and flawed. That’s a pretty important part of the nature of being.
Objective reality doesn’t exist, and that’s a good thing, because it means our entire universe is subjective, and therefore, malleable to our perceptions. It means that with a big enough idea and a mind on which to balance it, we can move the earth.
I think, therefore I am. An objective reality exists, because you exist. The question is, how much of reality can you perceive, and to what limit?
My existence is subjective. Therefore any reality whose existence is assumed on my basis is also subjective.
I don’t think you know what these words mean.
That’s because you’re afraid to have an intellectually honest discussion with someone who disagrees with you. It’s easier to pretend people who disagree with you don’t exist.
The fact that the self is an illusion is not a new idea. Surely you’ve heard of it. But you’d rather pretend that I don’t believe in it than to have an actual conversation considering its implications.
Western neurotypicals are so very concerned with ego. It’s unhealthy.
Dude. I’m always looking for a challenge. But you aren’t being a challenge— you’re being obnoxious. Tone it down a notch, and then maybe we can both respect and listen to each other, and entertain some philosophical ideas that we might not ultimately accept, like true intellectuals.
Can you show me a moment of this discussion when I was “obnoxious” from before you insulted me? Cause I wanted to have an actual discussion, and you’re saying you do as well, but what you’re saying would be hard to believe if you were the first one to throw an insult in place of a discussion.