Platonic Idealism is True, and Human Beings are Immortal
Offline Platonic Idealism is True, and Humans are Immortal
Physicalism and Naturalism are THE MOST IRRATIONAL of all irrational precepts. This is because Platonic Idealism is true.
This is the most fundamental of all questions at the centre of science and philosophy: What is reality, and what is not reality; what is nature, and what is not nature?
This question, and it’s answer, is metaphysical, or metaphysics.
The answer to this question, and it’s resulting debate, marks the central division in western thought. This debate began with Plato and Aristotle. Plato maintained that reality is that which we know or experience by or through reason (mathematics). Aristotle maintained the opposite; that reality is that which we know or experience by or through observation (physics and the other natural sciences). PLATO WAS RIGHT, AND ARISTOTLE WAS WRONG.
To clarify further, REALITY CANNOT BE BOTH WHAT WE OBSERVE, AND WHAT WE EXPERIENCE BY OR THROUGH REASON. IT CAN ONLY BE ONE OR THE OTHER.
Platonic idealism is true because mathematics is reality, and physics is not. And because mathematics is reality, there is therefore no such thing as time and space. Time and space only exist in physics. TIME AND SPACE DO NOT EXIST IN MATHEMATICS. Physics is not reality; it is an imperfect reflection of mathematics.
For naturalism and physicalism to be true, reasoning has to be biological (observable). If reasoning is not biological, then naturalism and physicalism are false. REASONING IS NOT BIOLOGICAL, therefore naturalism and physicalism are false, and Platonic idealism is true.
THERE IS NO MORE EVIDENCE THAT REASONING OCCURS IN THE BRAIN (or that reasoning is biological) THAN THERE IS THAT GOD EXISTS i.e. in terms of evidence, if you believe that reasoning occurs in the brain, it is the same as believing in God. So if you believe that reasoning is biological or occurs in the brain, you may as well be ‘theist’. The brain, like the rest of the body, is just an illusion.
For physicalism and naturalism to be true, they have to demonstrate that knowledge of mathematics and physics exists in a biological form in the brain (or just in a biological form). This is because mathematics and physics are classified as the ultimate arbiters of reality – the queen and king of the sciences, respectively. For naturalism and physicalism to be true, biology has to be the ultimate arbiter of reality, and not mathematics and physics. And therefore the only way that biology can be the ultimate arbiter of reality, is to demonstrate the existence of mathematics and physics knowledge in a biological form. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE, SO BIOLOGY IS DEFINITELY NOT THE ULTIMATE ARBITER OF REALITY.
In terms of understanding the relationship between mathematics, physics (and the other natural sciences), and reality (the central metaphysical question), I am a genius. The reason why people in this forum have difficulty understanding what I say or disagree with what I say about this subject is simply because I am a genius, and you’re not.
I am not arrogant about this. I am just telling the truth. Being arrogant and telling the truth are two completely different things.
Nobody on Earth understands this metaphysical issue as well as I do. I’m the best. No one can ever beat me on this subject. I will always win. I am the world’s leading expert on Platonic idealism. The reason why I will always win is because I am on the side of Platonic idealism, and Platonic idealism is true. Truth always triumphs, because it is reality. You cannot escape reality. And I am in direct communication with Plato. Yes, Plato’s body has died. But bodies are not real. Bodies are just reflections of reality, because human beings are actually immortal. My soul is unified with the soul of Plato in the world of perfect ideal forms. The world of forms, which is known by and through reason, is the real world, and the observed world is the reflection. Plato had the first word, and he will have the last word.
Please read the profile of the best human being that ever lived – Plato: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato
Platonism is central to the philosophy of mathematics: “Platonism is considered to be, in mathematics departments the world over, the predominant philosophy of mathematics, especially regarding the foundations of mathematics.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_idealism
I am a fundamentalist atheist.
- Login to post comments
I am answering everyone in one post, just to keep it tidy.
I have logically proved that:
1) Human beings are immortal.
2) God exists.
3) The Bible is divine revelation from God.
4) Heaven and Hell exist. Hell is eternal suffering, and Heaven is eternal happiness. Sin leads to Hell, and virtue leads to Heaven.
5) Reality is mind and not matter.
The following is also true, and this is the crux of the matter:
1). If biology is reducible to mathematics, then human beings are immortal, God exists, and the Bible is divine revelation.
2). However, if mathematics is reducible to biology, then human beings are mortal, God does not exist, and the Bible is not divine revelation.
As I explained above, it is logically impossible for mathematics to be reducible to biology. It is biology that is reducible to mathematics. That means that human beings are definitely immortal, God definitely exists, and the Bible is definitely divine revelation from God.
BobSpence1 suggests that I am making a false dichotomy. However, there are only two or three possibilities of what reality is. Reality is mind, it is matter, or it is a dualistic interaction between mind and matter. Eliminative idealism asserts that reality is mind, and eliminative materialism asserts that reality is matter.
I assert this: It is logically impossible for reality to be anything other than mathematics (and logic). And reality is not what we observe through our senses (the physical universe), because mathematics does not exist anywhere in the physical universe that we perceive. Mathematics only exists in our minds, and therefore our minds are the only reality. Platonic idealism is true, while naturalism, physicalism and eliminative materialism are false.
Eliminative materialism is the most extreme form of naturalism or physicalism. Eliminative materialism completely debunks itself in the following way. Eliminative materialism asserts that the only reality is matter, and that the human mind itself is matter. This leads to a serious contradiction. From the perspective of eliminative materialism, mathematics only exists in human minds, but eliminative materialism denies the existence of human minds. If human minds do not exist, it means that mathematics does not exist. If mathematics does not exist, it means that physics is meaningless. We can only know what the physical universe is through physics. So if mathematics does not exist, it means that we do not know whether the physical universe exists. So ultimately, eliminative materialism is saying that we do not know if anything exists i.e. we do not know whether the physical universe exists, and we do not know whether our minds exist either. So from the perspective of eliminative materialism, we may as well not exist, because we do not know if we do.
In contrast, Platonic (eliminative) idealism maintains that mathematics (and logic) exists and that mathematics is the only reality. From both the perspectives of naturalism/physicalism and Platonic idealism, mathematics only exists in human minds.
Ultimately, Platonic idealism is saying that human beings exist. Naturalism and physicalism (including eliminative materialism) are saying that human beings do not exist, or that human beings do not know whether or not they exist.
Clearly, only Platonic idealism is true. And naturalism and physicalism (including eliminative materialism) are completely false.
One important point I am making is this: We know that God exists, and that we are immortal, and that the Bible is divine revelation. But we do not know that the physical universe exists. The only things we know exist are ‘God’ and ‘our own minds’.
The reality we experience through our senses is only a reflection of the reality we experience in our minds i.e. universals (ideal forms) exist, and particulars do not.
I don’t believe that God exists, so in that sense I am an atheist. However, I know that God exists because I interact with God in the world of ideal forms outside time and space. In that sense I am a theist. Knowledge and belief are of course not the same.
This also answers BobSpence1, chndlrjhnsn, and robj101
As you haven't proved any of that, I'm writing down your answer as, "Nothing."
I think that helps clear up the question of whether you are genius or simply mad.
Wow! Nice way to beg the question in a bald assertion. And you say you understand philosophy?
What do biology and mathematics have to do with each other? Mathematics is a tool useful for modeling observations. Biology is a specific field of study that uses the tools of mathematics to model properties, processes, and systems. Neither is reducible to the other.
You say you understand science?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
That’s reassuring.
I still can’t work out who ‘Paisley’ is. Sorry, I’m ignorant.
Come on people, seriously. Unless he is actually off his meds, he's just trolling and giggling over his philosophy 101 textbook.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
O.K. i think i get what you are trying to say. First i think it is highly misleading to compare your idea to plato or at least to his idea of the forms. In your worldview the only form that exists is that of mathematics. You can't formulate forms of truth or justice etc through mathematics or pure logic.
Next you are making a huge leap from saying that mathematics is universal to saying that there is an abstract realm where math has some sort of reality. The same mathematical concepts would exist no matter what the starting conditions of the universe are and no matter what the resulting laws of physics are. Whatever exists does have to subscribe to the laws of mathematics, even God. It would be inconsistent for any conceived god to be able to change the nature of pure mathematics. God is useless in your worldview. This universal nature of math does not necessitate an abstract realm where yours and plato's souls are connected. There is only our physical reality which is based on mathematics.
I Am My God
The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence
True, that. And to think he started off with so much promise.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
I started writing much before the DON'T FEED THE TROLL sign appeared, and I'm a bit off-topic anyway. So I'm not gonna delete this.
So far, you did not mention much metaphysics, just Plato's philosophy, which is not enough to consider you as a student of metaphysics.
Telling a genius from madman is simple in practice. Genius is constructive and progressive, madman is destructive and backwardish.
I personally don't understand how do you create the dilemma if physics, biology or mathemathics is reality. Isn't that obvious? The truth is like a diamond of many sides. Physics is one of countless aspects of reality, so is mathemathics, biology, world of forms, and so on. Just because you discover one more aspect, it doesn't mean the others are less real. There are things that we know both by observation and reasoning, independently. So both reasoning and observation are legitimate.
Maybe a genius also solves problems, instead of creating some where were none
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
This is what I said in post #4. I'm genuinely surprised it took so long for someone else to come to the same conclusion.
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
awwww FUCK yeah!
everybody prick up your ears! we may never see paisley v. epistemologist, but i think we just got the next best thing!
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
mellestad and cj, you are both using rhetoric. Rhetoric contributes no useful meaning to logical discussion, and neither does name-calling.
The problem is that these are very deep ideas. This is metaphysics. It takes months or years to understand what these ideas really mean, and you guys respond to them in a matter of minutes. You can’t possibly know what they mean before you respond to them.
nigelTheBold, eveything you’ve said in your above post is false. You simply haven’t understood my line of reasoning, but I will explain again tomorrow. It is perfectly logical.
The way these forums work is stupid. I can understand that it looks like I’m trolling, but I’m not. Yes, of course if you read paragraphs out of context it sounds stupid. Each paragraph has to be connected to the other concepts I have explained. And I will interconnect the concepts again for you.
People keep accusing each other of being silly or ignorant. But it’s not that. It’s because new ideas do not make sense. And when a big idea is viewed in small segments out of context, each segment of the idea has a completely different meaning to the complete idea. You can’t possibly conclude that the meaning of individual segments is representative of the complete idea. You have to put all of the jigsaw puzzle pieces together for it to make any sense.
Every discussion I have had so far in this forum has had that same pattern. People have divided an idea I have explained into segments, and reacted as though each segment is the complete idea. Then they have accused me of being stupid or ignorant. Then I explain again. Then they do the same thing again – dividing the idea into segments that do not make sense when separated from the complete idea.
Then people start behaving like a mob and develop some kind of ‘shared opinion’ that just because several people have realised that an out of context paragraph doesn’t make sense, the idea is therefore false. The point is that no one has even understood it. It can take years to get to grips with these ideas.
I discuss these ideas with my friends offline, and they say that these ideas make perfect logical sense. However, when I discuss these ideas in an internet forum, they do not make as much sense, because of the way the communication works.
You shouldn’t form gangs and attack people just people just because what they have said does not make sense to you. Communication involves a transmitter, a medium, and a receiver. If the transmitter, the medium, or the receiver, fails, then communication fails. In an Internet forum this is even worse. You don’t know whether it is the transmitter, the medium, or the receiver, that is not working properly. My point is, don’t assume it is always the transmitter. It is irrational to assume that; bear in mind that there is also the medium and the receiver.
The only contribution that mellestad and cj have made to discussion is to demand that the discussion stop. That only leads me to conclude that their ‘pet theories’ are being debunked, and they don’t like it.
mellestad and cj are not your leaders. They are trying to control and referee discussion in the forum so that it does not conflict with their ideologies. You have not even elected them to speak on your behalf. If you have a mind of your own, please ignore them, and use logic and reason to continue the discussion. That is the purpose of The Rational Response Squad forum. If this forum cannot be used for debate and discussion, then it is useless, and The Rational Response Squad is useless.
If you are not willing to have your beliefs challenged with logic, then your beliefs are irrational.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
thank god you're here. nobody ever knew what this forum was for until you came along. you can let sapient know you've got it covered from here on out. i'm sure he'll be relieved.
look, personally your ideology is neither here nor there for me. people may not agree with you, but i think most of these people take issue with you because you come across as a pedantic asshole. i mean, what the fuck do you expect when you type shit like, "i'm the world's leading expert in this," "i'm the best," "you can never beat me," etc., etc. i mean, if you want to make assertions, even naked ones, fine, but were those particular remarks really necessary to get your views across? i don't care if you think you're just "stating facts" or not, unless you've been out of human society for several decades, you know remarks like that are tactless and you know how people react to tactless remarks, so why bitch about it now? i know we have some loose cannons here who will stoop to insults without provocation, but neither cj nor nigel nor mellestad are loose cannons.
seriously, if you don't like how people are here, fucking leave. why is it so hard for some people to come to that decision? what is it lately with pseudo-intellectuals coming here with enormous chips on their shoulders, posting long and wordy expositions of their philosophies, getting flustered when people's jaws don't automatically drop in awe, and ending up lashing out at the entire forum for supposedly not being a place conducive to proper debate? it seems like we're getting at least a new one every two weeks these days.
there are thousands of philosophy and religion forums on the net, with plenty atheists and theists. i'm sure there are at least a couple out there where people will hail you as the greatest fucking philosopher who ever lived. or maybe you should just stick to cogitating in front of these friends you speak of.
regardless, why stay around a place just to whine about it? fucking leave.
unless that was really your intent all along, to whine about how you're an unrecognized genius.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Kapkao how is your troll badge coming along. I hope you haven't given up yet?!?!?!?!
Don't bother. As you refuse to answer questions (such as, 'How does group solipsism avoid the epistemic pitfalls of individual solipsism?'), your argument is nothing but unproven (and unprovable) assertions. As such, it is ontologically and metaphysically worthless.
You are doing nothing to move this conversation forward. You avoid engaging those who would attempt to discuss these ideas with you. You appear to be incapable of understanding opposing viewpoints, and so have repeatedly argued against strawman versions of opposing arguments, the very few times you have tried to engage us.
If all you wish to do is preach, there are better places for you to do so.
Oh, and your constant refrain of, "This takes years to understand, so you obviously do not understand it," is disingenuous, and simply an ad hominem. Transparent attempts to avoid criticism obviously indicates your pet theories are being debunked, and you don't like it.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Oh, so you're an atheist that believes in God. That's funny.
Well, that makes sense. You were a theist all along. You just called yourself an atheist because you're too confused to even understand the definitions of theism and atheism.
Someone hurry up and stick a theist badge on this little turd. That way, he won't fool anyone else.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
He was too lazy too google several of your big words, omg the BIG words! On top of that you are either playing the game as he wants you too, or you are supposed to start worshipping him as the avatar of some god thing. Anathema of redundant appertaining of cogitation.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Called it.
Bad news, dawg. The RRS cores have pretty much sent me a vaguely-subtle "FU" message. I'll try again after I go platinum
Just so we're all clear; how much AM I being gossiped about on Myspace, Twitter, Facebook, Yahoo chat, etc?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
To everyone:
I have revealed to you all the meaning of life using logic, and none of you even realize it.
The fact is that you are all insane because none of you realize what reality is.
I am your psychiatrist, and I have logically revealed to you this fundamental truth:
God exists, the Bible is divine revelation, and human beings are immortal. This is because Platonic idealism is true, and eliminative materialism is false.
Wake up people!
You are all absolutely insane, and I am not. Essentially, you are all babies, and I am an adult. The only reason you disagree with anything I have said, is because you are insane. That is the truth, and I have proven logically that you are all insane.
No I am not a troll, and no I am not going to ‘fucking leave’. Because you are all babies, and I am an adult, I have to protect you all from your stupidity and ignorance. Parents don’t abandon their children when their children tell them to ‘go away’.
You are seriously all complete retards. I am a genius, and you’re not. Period.
Telling the truth and being rude or tactless are two completely different things.
I don’t want to be worshiped as a great philosopher. I want to save your souls from eternal damnation. Those are two completely different things.
As I said, Platonic idealism has to be logically true by default, and eliminative materialism has to be logically false by default. Only universals (perfect ideal forms) can be real, and therefore particulars cannot be real. Both eliminative materialism and Platonic idealism are in agreement that universals only exist in human thought. Universals (including mathematical truths) have to exist, because if they did not exist, we would not know whether or not the physical universe existed, because physics would be just bunk. So . . . as eliminative materialism and eliminative idealism are both in agreement that universals only exist in human thought, it means that the ‘physical universe’ only exists in human thought. That means that our minds are the only reality; the ‘physical universe’ that we perceive through our senses is not reality.
That means that the mystical experience is not reducible to matter i.e. mystical experiences of God are equally real or more real than our experience of the ‘physical universe’ through our senses. That rationally justifies the claim that the Bible is Divine revelation from God. The fact that billions of people, the world over, understand that the Bible is divine revelation from God is because the spiritual truth documented in the Bible corresponds with the truths of people’s mystical experiences from God. Therefore God exists, human beings are immortal, and the Bible is divine revelation. Jesus Christ knew what the meaning of life was, and that is why the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are the most important, and most truthful and meaningful books ever written. Jesus Christ, logically, was virtually God incarnate, because he knew so much more than anyone else about God, the human soul, and the meaning of life.
I have logically debunked eliminative materialism (the extreme of naturalism and physicalism) and atheism. That is why you are telling me that I am a troll and that I should ‘fucking leave’. I have logically debunked The Rational Response Squad and Richard Dawkins. I have logically proven that religion is actually rational, and atheism and physicalism/naturalism are irrational. Wakey wakey!
So, in summary, I have proven logically that you are all insane, and that you are all complete retards.
The truth hurts. That is the truth.
I am atheism’s worst enemy, because I have logically proven that atheism is false and irrational, and that theism (including religion) is true and rational.
Shush before I abduct your wife while wearing a ring of invisibility then seduce her with my extreme talent of pleasuring!
Your ideals stike me as inane gibberish...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Dude, it's a simple question. Until you answer it, you have no epistemic, ontologic, or metaphysical standing.
How does group solipsism avoid the epistemic issues of regular old solipsism?
Until you can answer that question, you are not a genius. You are not even very smart.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
"Stuff and nonsense"
Nothing, at this point. He's painted himself into a corner, and is adamantly trying to deny it. He can't even answer simple questions about his philosophy.
This is why you're not going to get your troll badge, you know.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
I still find it interesting that NO ONE has tried to debunk my point about off-site gossip... apparently because they can NOT do so and remain intellectually honest!
(Amazing how some people betray their own nature by simply expressing themselves/keeping quiet about certain subjects, is it not? Hell! I feel like "Lore" from ST:TNG, sometimes!)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Don't feed Epi the Troll.
I hate missing out on having so much potential fun with said trolls!
In essence, I believe Epistemo-wtfeverhisnameis will scurry off the site once once I scare the ever living FUCK out of him! (pretty easy to do with "weak minds"; and the best part? I don't necessarily need to break any rules to do so!)
-Kapkao, and Kapkao was his name-o!
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
You're talking nonsense here, reality is what it is, the reduction of biological science to mathematical and physical science merely provides that some mensurations have more explanatory power than others, the possibility remains that none of of them are reality itself.
It's easy to get stuck on a solipsitic account as the analytic result of epistemic reasoning at the limits, it's true but it's also empty. You're still going to be hospitalised if you walk in front of a bus so where's the utility? Many say there is none, and I'll differ on that, but I would agree with them on not concluding solipsism.
I do conclude that personalness of reality is true, and that the focus of a conscious entity is its reality ergo the reality we experience through our senses is indeed merely a reflection of the order which constitutes the egotisitical mind. This is evidenced by the experience of abstract order such as unity (the basis of arithmetic), continuity (the basis of analytic geometry) and etc.
However , the rational conclusion is that personalness of reality is a function of the limits inherent in the aformentioned order comprising the egotistical mind (or focus) of the entity because that it's the nature of "reality" (where by reality we are implying ALL) is not a necessary or even implicit result. It would be more accurate to ascribe it to the nature of consciousness, IMHO.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I would have thought that group solipsism, by definition, cannot be solipsism. Solipsism is a form of extreme idealism, which denies the existence of other minds. Group solipsism, however, accepts the existence of other minds. So group solipsism is social constructionism rather than solipsism.
Idealist
You can apply mathematics to almost anything, but somehow I doubt that a meteor cares that it is travelling a certain velocity, nor do you when it is out of sight and out of mind.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin