Re: CHAT: mass-hallucination?
|From:||Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>|
|Date:||Friday, June 17, 2005, 18:37|
On Thursday, June 16, 2005, at 07:00 , Joe wrote:
> Ray Brown wrote:
>> Are you suggesting that not only my senses but the senses of people who
>> live in our road and of certain other people here in the south-east of
>> England are untrustworthy? Are we all suffering some sort of
>> mass-hallucination? Or what???
> I'd say that not even mass hallucination is neccesary. It's possible
> that you're the only person in the universe - you only need one
> hallucination to hallucinate everyone else hallucinating.
But if I am the only person that exists and I am hallucinating, then it is
arguably mass hallucination, I being the one and only mass. A weak point
in this argument is that the hallucination appears to be _consistent_ over
a a longish time-span.
Yes, yes - I know it may be that I was created less than a nanosecond ago
together with all my 'memories'.
But if I am the only person that exists then the recent thread on whether
commands to believe are felicitous or not is irrelevant, since what I say
> I'd suggest two or three axioms for the universe that we can be sure of:
I count only two axioms.
> 1)A consciousness (namely, me) exists.
That is remarkably like Descartes' "cogito [ergo] sum". How can you be
certain that _you_ exist?
For all I know your messages could be spawned by some smart piece of
software that reads the conlang list :)
How do I _know_ that even I exist? How can I be at all certain that my
consciousness is in any sense real?
> 2)There is some ability to process data (although 'process' implies
> time, which, again, rather lacks evidence), which leads to the way I
> percieve the world.
And _data_ implies other existenceS (since 'data' is either a plural or a
mass-noun) for which you have as much or as little evidence as you have
> Other than that, everything is an assumption.
Sorry - I disagree. *Your two 'axioms' are themselves assumptions* - you
have provided no evidence for either.
> Personal musings over. Comment if you want.
I have done so - or at least a reply will appear to have been generated
> It interests me.
Does it? (Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you actually have some
sort of existence)
Assuming that I have any sort of existence - I am certain of two things:
1. that philosophers will still be arguing over such matters as the human
race comes to an end.
2. that there are more appropriate lists for discussing such matters than
the _Con(structed) Lang(uages)_ list. Unless, of course, you are
constructing a language for the inhabitants of the planet Solipsismus, who
each believes that it alone exits and that the other inhabitants are
figments of its imagination.
On Friday, June 17, 2005, at 01:22 , Joseph Bridwell wrote:
> Telepathic aliens. I first considered that they might be aliens who[snip]
> I pick telepathic aliens, perhaps even vampiric. How often do you lose
> blood when tending them?
Not often - and not enough blood to satisfy even the teeniest vampire. I
guess it's the same telepathic aliens that cause Joe to imagine that he
actually exists :-D
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760
PS - assuming of course that 'mind' exists and indeed that language is not