Because everyone when you choose to do nothing you don't lose anything. You cannot gain anything to lose. Whereas if you chose to act and find it all an illusion, then you lose any sense of significance to your actions. The only reason games have any joy is immersion and you temporarily forget that it's not real. But if you played knowing that fact, each thing you did would be hollow.
That is reason enough to not go on with life, to avoid the risk of wasting your effort and energy on an illusion. By doing nothing, you waste no effort and lose nothing (for you have not gained anything to lose). Simply put, the cost of what you would lose if it doesn't matter is far more than anything you could gain. I believe someone mentioned cost benefit analysis but didn't do it properly as it applies to this case.
I believe as I have stated before that dreams are reason enough to consider that the world doesn't exist. No one seems to have addressed that. Or that our senses are vulnerable to illusions that can trick them.
Because everyone when you choose to do nothing you don't lose anything.
An untrue statement based off a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of opportunity cost.
The fact is that a life spent doing nothing, purely out of irrational fear, is a life wasted. And a life wasted is, indeed, a loss.
You cannot gain anything to lose.
Time is lost.
Whereas if you chose to act and find it all an illusion, then you lose any sense of significance to your actions.
Look, there's nothing wrong with saying that if the world were not real, it would profoundly influence our perspective on what is or is not meaningful. However, there's a huge problem with saying that nothing would have any meaning, although you're not even arguing that. You're arguing that the fact that we cannot disprove a negative on everything not being real means it renders everything meaningless, even if we have no basis of thinking that things are unreal. That's just ridiculous.
The only reason games have any joy is immersion and you temporarily forget that it's not real.
No, you don't ever lose sight of the fact that it's not real. I never, at any point, think a game of Magic is real. I don't think I'm actually a spellcaster. Same with video games, I don't ever actually think I'm Mario, or Solid Snake, or Master Chief. I never believe that the game is real. I do, however, willingly immerse myself in the experience. I experience playing a game, and I can imagine myself in the perspective of that person. It's how any art works. I can hear a story being told and place myself in the position of that person. I can watch Star Wars and imagine myself as Luke Skywalker. I never, at any time, think I actually am Luke Skywalker.
That is reason enough to not go on with life, to avoid the risk of wasting your effort and energy on an illusion.
YOU DO NOT KNOW IT IS AN ILLUSION, NOR DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO THINK IT IS.
Honestly, how many times do you need to be reminded of what you yourself are arguing?
By doing nothing, you waste no effort and lose nothing (for you have not gained anything to lose). Simply put, the cost of what you would lose if it doesn't matter is far more than anything you could gain. I believe someone mentioned cost benefit analysis but didn't do it properly as it applies to this case.
It would cost you everything if there are monsters under your bed. You don't seem to be afraid of those.
I believe as I have stated before that dreams are reason enough to consider that the world doesn't exist. No one seems to have addressed that.
We have. You're just ignoring it. You are not just talking about considering that the world doesn't exist, what you are talking about is being overwhelmed by fear of the possibility of the world not existing. That's what we're arguing against.
But again, I have not seen anyone address the fact the because our senses are fallible and are vulnerable to illusions that it is reason enough to suspect things could not be real. The same thing with dreaming, in which you create things that can feel as though they are real. So far that has not been addressed here. I said that those are reasons enough to think the world is illusory.
Once again, the monsters under the bed is an irrelevant point here. Not that there would be any cost if such things did exist (which they don't).
And again, what you would lose if this all turns out to be false (your worldview, your basis for knowledge, essentially everything you thought you knew) is more than enough to not risk it on the off chance that it is false. I know I cannot know it is, but the price for being wrong about that is too great. What you lose is too much.
So it is better to not to anything. To not believe anything to be either case, so that you don't lose anything in the end. Living life believing everything you had and did was real and then to have the rug pulled out is almost the same is losing it in reality, but joy close enough to death. Putting any faith into the fact that everything is real and exists is a massive risk with a huge downside, especially with no evidence to support it.
Public Mod Note
(osieorb18):
Warning for Spam - Stonewalling
But again, I have not seen anyone address the fact the because our senses are fallible and are vulnerable to illusions that it is reason enough to suspect things could not be real. The same thing with dreaming, in which you create things that can feel as though they are real. So far that has not been addressed here. I said that those are reasons enough to think the world is illusory.
It's obvious that you don't actually have any sort of point, because you're constantly changing the subject.
But again, I have not seen anyone address the fact the because our senses are fallible and are vulnerable to illusions that it is reason enough to suspect things could not be real.
Here, you're talking about suspecting that the world might not be real.
I said that those are reasons enough to think the world is illusory.
Here you're no longer talking about suspecting the world might not be real, but that you have sufficient reason to think the world is illusory.
Moreover, you were earlier talking about a third position, in which you were talking about not being able to prove a negative of the world not existing meaning that we should be afraid it doesn't.
So which is it? Which of these three completely separate positions are we talking about? Because it's been changing with each sentence.
So far that has not been addressed here.
It has, you just haven't bothered to pay attention. Which is bad enough, but as I've posted earlier, you also haven't even bothered to keep track of your own arguments. And I've demonstrated earlier that you've posted links to other articles as evidence and you clearly didn't bother to read those either.
So, what's the point of all this? What exactly are you expecting to get out of this thread? Because you don't seem to actually want to participate in any real discussion.
Once again, the monsters under the bed is an irrelevant point here.
It's a completely relevant point. Can you PROVE that monsters don't exist under your bed? If not, then why aren't you afraid of them? Shouldn't you be terrified of them?
If you aren't, why are you scared that reality might not be real, since you have exactly the same amount of basis for thinking that it is?
And again, what you would lose if this all turns out to be false
You have, by your own admission, stated that you have no reason for thinking that this is the case over the world actually be real.
If you have no reason to think something is the case, why behave as though it is? Moreover, why be afraid that it is?
That's what you're talking about, living in complete paralysis due to fear of something that you have no reason to think actually is the case.
(your worldview, your basis for knowledge, essentially everything you thought you knew) is more than enough to not risk it on the off chance that it is false. I know I cannot know it is, but the price for being wrong about that is too great. What you lose is too much.
Except this is completely backwards. You're talking about living in fear. For the rest of your life. Being too terrified to do anything on the possibility that something you have no reason to believe is true would end up being true.
Again, this is as ridiculous a position as being afraid to sleep because you think there's monsters under your bed. Yet you don't seem to be afraid of those. Why is this completely baseless fear different?
So it is better to not to anything. To not believe anything to be either case, so that you don't lose anything in the end. Living life believing everything you had and did was real and then to have the rug pulled out is almost the same is losing it in reality, but joy close enough to death. Putting any faith into the fact that everything is real and exists is a massive risk with a huge downside, especially with no evidence to support it.
You have no reason to believe the world isn't real. You're saying it's too massive of a risk, but what you're talking about is wasting your entire life just because there's a possible scenario in which you have NO REASON to think is the case, but you can't disprove.
Except, you can't disprove monsters under your bed, but somehow THAT doesn't bother you. So why is there a discrepancy?
See, this is what I'm talking about when I say,
Quote from Highroller »
I don't think it's unjustified to say that you are going out of your way to feel existential dread. I don't think this has inspired existential dread in you, I think you are looking for an excuse to feel or justify already existing feelings of existential dread, and this is one you have found.
You have consistently demonstrated in this thread that you are going out of your way to find some sort of reason why you shouldn't go out and live your life.
I am not deliberately trying to find a reason to not go on with life. But I don't know how people can go on. According to burden of proof it's on the one claiming the existence of something to prove it. That and I'm not entirely comfortable with the prospect that everything I have learned and found joy in is rooted in a "belief" that things are real and exist outside of me. That just seems so fragile, that it's not a given and objective fact but belief.
I am not deliberately trying to find a reason to not go on with life. But I don't know how people can go on. According to burden of proof it's on the one claiming the existence of something to prove it. That and I'm not entirely comfortable with the prospect that everything I have learned and found joy in is rooted in a "belief" that things are real and exist outside of me. That just seems so fragile, that it's not a given and objective fact but belief.
The proof of the existence of reality is the fact that you are experiencing it. If you want to then claim that the reality you are experiencing isn't real, that has its own burden of proof, which has not been (and perhaps cannot be) met.
How does that prove it to be real though? I mean all I can know for certain is that I exist. By your logic it can be said that dreams are reality because I experience them and that they exist, even though that isn't the case.
He's saying the burden is on you to prove that reality isn't real. You have no proof, so you have no reason to think it's not. And if you have no reason to think it's not true, then you have no reason to be afraid of it.
So if you want to live your life in abject terror over something you have no reason for being afraid of, go ahead. But I expect you to also live in stark terror of the monsters under your bed, because you have equal reason to be afraid of them, and the very least you can be is consistent.
I mean all I can know for certain is that I exist. By your logic it can be said that dreams are reality because I experience them and that they exist, even though that isn't the case.
But then you wake up and realize that they're dreams.
I mean all I can know for certain is that I exist. By your logic it can be said that dreams are reality because I experience them and that they exist, even though that isn't the case.
No, experiencing a dream is evidence that the dream exists*. Waking up is evidence the dream isn't reality. You don't have similar evidence against the reality of the waking world.
* Specifically, the dream exists as a pattern in your brain, which is an answer we've come up with to "what is a dream?" after determining that dreaming is a phenomenon that exists.
I mean all I can know for certain is that I exist. By your logic it can be said that dreams are reality because I experience them and that they exist, even though that isn't the case.
No, experiencing a dream is evidence that the dream exists*. Waking up is evidence the dream isn't reality. You don't have similar evidence against the reality of the waking world.
* Specifically, the dream exists as a pattern in your brain, which is an answer we've come up with to "what is a dream?" after determining that dreaming is a phenomenon that exists.
I get that much. But when it comes to the burden of proof isn't it on the one claiming the existence of something to prove it exists? Like when it comes to whether other people are real and exist, and the same for reality?
Additionally, I'm not entirely comfortable with the fact that the foundation of my knowledge base is mere belief (that there is an external reality).
I mean all I can know for certain is that I exist. By your logic it can be said that dreams are reality because I experience them and that they exist, even though that isn't the case.
No, experiencing a dream is evidence that the dream exists*. Waking up is evidence the dream isn't reality. You don't have similar evidence against the reality of the waking world.
* Specifically, the dream exists as a pattern in your brain, which is an answer we've come up with to "what is a dream?" after determining that dreaming is a phenomenon that exists.
I get that much. But when it comes to the burden of proof isn't it on the one claiming the existence of something to prove it exists? Like when it comes to whether other people are real and exist, and the same for reality?
Yes, the burden lies upon the person making a claim. However:
1) In this thread, there are two claims being made at the top level of the discussion, "the reality we experience is real", and "there exists a reality beyond the reality we experience". Both have a burden of proof.
2) Different claims require different kinds of evidence. Mundane claims require very little evidence, sometimes all the way to the claim itself being sufficient (eg, "My name is Brian" is both a claim and generally sufficient evidence in support of the claim). Claims which stretch beyond the listener's experience require more and stronger evidence in order to convince the listener of their veracity. It takes very little evidence to satisfy the burden of "the reality we experience if real", because we can all corroborate experiences that are consistent with a shared reality (eg, talking to each other). The bar required to justify the claim that there exists a reality that none of us have observed or experienced is much higher.
Seems like it's the opposite, that it requires great evidence to say that the reality we experience is real given how dreams can seem real even though they aren't. Waking up isn't really much evidence that this isn't a dream, but that what one previously was in is. You also can't use other people as evidence because they might not be real either nor is there a way to truly know if their claims are accurate. In the end you have no proof that what you see around you is real.
Seems like it's the opposite, that it requires great evidence to say that the reality we experience is real given how dreams can seem real even though they aren't. Waking up isn't really much evidence that this isn't a dream, but that what one previously was in is.
You're correct that waking up is not evidence that reality is real, and I never said otherwise. (I said it was evidence your dream was just that.) However, waking up is also not evidence that reality isn't real. At best, it's a reason to start investigating the question.
You also can't use other people as evidence because they might not be real either nor is there a way to truly know if their claims are accurate.
Not other people, their interactions with you. It's a subtle distinction, but when your interactions with others comport with the rest of reality, those interactions reinforce the consistent reality you're experiencing.
Because the topic of this discussion has become essentially identical to that of AzureDuality's radical skepticism thread, I invite everyone to continue the talk there instead of here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That is reason enough to not go on with life, to avoid the risk of wasting your effort and energy on an illusion. By doing nothing, you waste no effort and lose nothing (for you have not gained anything to lose). Simply put, the cost of what you would lose if it doesn't matter is far more than anything you could gain. I believe someone mentioned cost benefit analysis but didn't do it properly as it applies to this case.
I believe as I have stated before that dreams are reason enough to consider that the world doesn't exist. No one seems to have addressed that. Or that our senses are vulnerable to illusions that can trick them.
The fact is that a life spent doing nothing, purely out of irrational fear, is a life wasted. And a life wasted is, indeed, a loss.
Time is lost.
Look, there's nothing wrong with saying that if the world were not real, it would profoundly influence our perspective on what is or is not meaningful. However, there's a huge problem with saying that nothing would have any meaning, although you're not even arguing that. You're arguing that the fact that we cannot disprove a negative on everything not being real means it renders everything meaningless, even if we have no basis of thinking that things are unreal. That's just ridiculous.
No, you don't ever lose sight of the fact that it's not real. I never, at any point, think a game of Magic is real. I don't think I'm actually a spellcaster. Same with video games, I don't ever actually think I'm Mario, or Solid Snake, or Master Chief. I never believe that the game is real. I do, however, willingly immerse myself in the experience. I experience playing a game, and I can imagine myself in the perspective of that person. It's how any art works. I can hear a story being told and place myself in the position of that person. I can watch Star Wars and imagine myself as Luke Skywalker. I never, at any time, think I actually am Luke Skywalker.
YOU DO NOT KNOW IT IS AN ILLUSION, NOR DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO THINK IT IS.
Honestly, how many times do you need to be reminded of what you yourself are arguing?
It would cost you everything if there are monsters under your bed. You don't seem to be afraid of those.
We have. You're just ignoring it. You are not just talking about considering that the world doesn't exist, what you are talking about is being overwhelmed by fear of the possibility of the world not existing. That's what we're arguing against.
Once again, the monsters under the bed is an irrelevant point here. Not that there would be any cost if such things did exist (which they don't).
And again, what you would lose if this all turns out to be false (your worldview, your basis for knowledge, essentially everything you thought you knew) is more than enough to not risk it on the off chance that it is false. I know I cannot know it is, but the price for being wrong about that is too great. What you lose is too much.
So it is better to not to anything. To not believe anything to be either case, so that you don't lose anything in the end. Living life believing everything you had and did was real and then to have the rug pulled out is almost the same is losing it in reality, but joy close enough to death. Putting any faith into the fact that everything is real and exists is a massive risk with a huge downside, especially with no evidence to support it.
Here, you're talking about suspecting that the world might not be real.
Here you're no longer talking about suspecting the world might not be real, but that you have sufficient reason to think the world is illusory.
Moreover, you were earlier talking about a third position, in which you were talking about not being able to prove a negative of the world not existing meaning that we should be afraid it doesn't.
So which is it? Which of these three completely separate positions are we talking about? Because it's been changing with each sentence.
It has, you just haven't bothered to pay attention. Which is bad enough, but as I've posted earlier, you also haven't even bothered to keep track of your own arguments. And I've demonstrated earlier that you've posted links to other articles as evidence and you clearly didn't bother to read those either.
So, what's the point of all this? What exactly are you expecting to get out of this thread? Because you don't seem to actually want to participate in any real discussion.
It's a completely relevant point. Can you PROVE that monsters don't exist under your bed? If not, then why aren't you afraid of them? Shouldn't you be terrified of them?
If you aren't, why are you scared that reality might not be real, since you have exactly the same amount of basis for thinking that it is?
You have, by your own admission, stated that you have no reason for thinking that this is the case over the world actually be real.
If you have no reason to think something is the case, why behave as though it is? Moreover, why be afraid that it is?
That's what you're talking about, living in complete paralysis due to fear of something that you have no reason to think actually is the case.
Except this is completely backwards. You're talking about living in fear. For the rest of your life. Being too terrified to do anything on the possibility that something you have no reason to believe is true would end up being true.
Again, this is as ridiculous a position as being afraid to sleep because you think there's monsters under your bed. Yet you don't seem to be afraid of those. Why is this completely baseless fear different?
You have no reason to believe the world isn't real. You're saying it's too massive of a risk, but what you're talking about is wasting your entire life just because there's a possible scenario in which you have NO REASON to think is the case, but you can't disprove.
Except, you can't disprove monsters under your bed, but somehow THAT doesn't bother you. So why is there a discrepancy?
See, this is what I'm talking about when I say,
You have consistently demonstrated in this thread that you are going out of your way to find some sort of reason why you shouldn't go out and live your life.
Maybe you should look at why that is.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
He's saying the burden is on you to prove that reality isn't real. You have no proof, so you have no reason to think it's not. And if you have no reason to think it's not true, then you have no reason to be afraid of it.
So if you want to live your life in abject terror over something you have no reason for being afraid of, go ahead. But I expect you to also live in stark terror of the monsters under your bed, because you have equal reason to be afraid of them, and the very least you can be is consistent.
But then you wake up and realize that they're dreams.
* Specifically, the dream exists as a pattern in your brain, which is an answer we've come up with to "what is a dream?" after determining that dreaming is a phenomenon that exists.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I get that much. But when it comes to the burden of proof isn't it on the one claiming the existence of something to prove it exists? Like when it comes to whether other people are real and exist, and the same for reality?
Additionally, I'm not entirely comfortable with the fact that the foundation of my knowledge base is mere belief (that there is an external reality).
1) In this thread, there are two claims being made at the top level of the discussion, "the reality we experience is real", and "there exists a reality beyond the reality we experience". Both have a burden of proof.
2) Different claims require different kinds of evidence. Mundane claims require very little evidence, sometimes all the way to the claim itself being sufficient (eg, "My name is Brian" is both a claim and generally sufficient evidence in support of the claim). Claims which stretch beyond the listener's experience require more and stronger evidence in order to convince the listener of their veracity. It takes very little evidence to satisfy the burden of "the reality we experience if real", because we can all corroborate experiences that are consistent with a shared reality (eg, talking to each other). The bar required to justify the claim that there exists a reality that none of us have observed or experienced is much higher.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Not other people, their interactions with you. It's a subtle distinction, but when your interactions with others comport with the rest of reality, those interactions reinforce the consistent reality you're experiencing.
Proof is for mathematics, not philosophy.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.