experiences seem repetitious rather than novel characterizing the phenomena apprehended as relatively persistent would be far more parsimonious that to say otherwise hmm what an elaborate deception (watchmaker)
<blush> I'm honored. Sadly, my grasp of the english language is limited by my lack of education. Parsimonious can be translated into frugality and hubris speaks of egotism. Now that I know the words, maybe I can keep up. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
most excellent a restriction of awareness to the immediate locale the first nanoseconds i find it ludicrous and illogical to assert not me
Not all qualities are something inherent to an object. Color for example can just be free roaming photons bouncing off of an object and getting stretched in the process. A pattern that has arisen with the use of science is that we can see more and more difference as our visibility improves. This allows us toclearly define 'what' things are. In your onion anology the only layer I am adding is that the information our senses are being stimulated with comes from external sources. Whether it's emitted from a particular source or is emitted from the interaction of multiple sources doesn't really matter. That information exists. I'll explain why the proof works. We can today observe that changes occured in Earths history long before human life (or life in general). Those changes are 100% consistent with known cosmic qualities. This directly validates that what is represented by the human concept of qualia existed long before human observers existed.
Absurdity is the norm, however, and logic is relative. Do you assert you will be soon, as well, then? Where is the proof?
It is the saying about what a thing is when no one ____s it I am talking about. Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent. I am not saying that things wink in and out of existence. It is very hard to prove this is not true, but I am not saying it. I am saying that every word we have that is a property word is no longer meaninful if we are talking about something no one is experiencing. To speak about that things properties is like saying THE BOY BEING KISSED WAS ALONE. THE PIE THAT WAS EATEN WHEN NO LIFE FORM WAS AROUND. THE CHAIR WAS RECOGNIZED IN THE ROOM EMPTY OF CONSCIOUS ORGANISMS. So I am not making a claim that there is nothing there. I am saying that our language CANNOT cover 'it'.
Without knowing specific difference we certainly cannot discuss what they are as there would be no knowledge of them; however, we can certainly assert that differences exist whether or not there are people to perceive them. There is no need to go farther as that knowledge invalidates the OP s assertion. Sorry, didn't mean to cut the rest out but you hit the nail on the head and I wanted to emphasize it. Your quote above is my sole assertion for this thread and the OP asserts the exact opposite.
Well maybe not hubris but in general I agree. The OP is asserting that there is nothing happening unless we're looking. That is what I am disagreeing with.
Without difference there cannot be cause or effect. We can observe today that cause and effect existed long before humans; therefore, difference (i.e. qualities) existed before humans (meaning human observation is not a requirement for their existence). lol no. Plants don't have minds. Zero probability? You wouldn't. You wouldn't think, you wouldn't feel, you wouldn't move, etc... because there would be no you.
I assert, then, that there is no real thing, because real things must be observed, else they are not real. I further assert that no observation is without flaw, thus all perception is suspect. Finally, I do not assert that things pop in and out of existence, rather, that nothing exists and everything exists at the same time.
Sure you would, silly. If I come into existence with information in my mind, I have no way of proving otherwise. Do you?
there is an argument that phenomenalists are solipsistics, so good call. But this would be plural solipsists, at least so far. Which is kinda funny. Sort of pagan.
A bit more than... "concensus of opinion". Our *models* of objective reality might be the product of a plurality of minds; however, if a model is incorrect then it's objective reality that tells us.