Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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 goes :)
> 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 for time.
> 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: [snip]
> <humour> > Telepathic aliens. I first considered that they might be aliens who
> I pick telepathic aliens, perhaps even vampiric. How often do you lose > blood when tending them? > </humour>
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 Ray =============================================== =============================================== "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 an illusion.


Chris Bates <chris.maths_student@...>