C.S. Lewis on materialistic thoughts

Didn't I see them do that on CSI?

I don't really find it that odd or mysterious. If the universe exists, and is really real, then obviously that reality would be able to be symbolically represented, and that's all we're doing. Well, getting back to the point that science is tentative, we don't actually know that what we think is true is true. Lewis proceeds from the erroneous assumption that we're capable of knowing the ultimate, real truth of the universe. In a universe where solipcism cannot be refuted, we simply don't know if that's the case.In the meantime, while Lewis tries to bake our noodles with philosophical uselessness, we're over here trying to make our VCR's work.

If I go over to my sister's house, I can observe an artist create art.Where can I go to see God in the act of creating Creation?

I doubt it, as I find that its the believers who are the least imaginative people I know. By symbols. What did you think I meant? Do I find it mysterious that a random process would lead to something you describe as unpredictable? No, why would I?Look, we don't really know what human consciousness is. In fact it appears to be very little more than basic instinctual responses combined with language, and language is just another way of modeling the world, something that just about every living thing, and a bunch of non-living machines of our own design, is capable of doing.So, no, there's nothing about human consciousness that I find so mysterious that it can't simply be one result of the laws of physics operating in a certain way. Solipcism isn't really a "philosophy", its a statement about the epistomological condition of human knowledge. Solipcism doesn't destroy facts. It simply means that what we think of as facts might not be, even if they continue to for a basis for accurate predictions about the phenomena we observe.Science and solipcism are entirely compatible; in fact, science is the only method of knowledge-gathering that is even worthwhile in the presence of solipcism. I mean that which solipcism means we can never know. Maybe. Given solipcism I don't see how we can know that. Strong solipcism proposes that that SOMETHING doesn't actually exist, but I don't agree that we can know that. The flaw in your argument is that you don't seem to realize that the random, intentless laws of physics in the universe have given rise to humans who have intent. Or maybe that's something you don't see as possible. I don't see why it would be.

So is human behavior. It's called "psychology." I know what you meant; that's not what it is. Solipcism isn't a worldview, it's a statement about the epistomological condition of human knowledge. Why? Why would they have to be real to be useful? If I use the "facts", and I develop a theory that allows me to construct a VCR and I have a good time watching movies, does it matter that the VCR isn't real? I'm having the same experience either way, so there's certainly usefulness to facts that accurately describe my experiences, even if my experiences don't reflect an actual reality. Solipcism isn't a choice; no more than gravity is a choice. It's an unrefutable statement about what we can know. We can't just choose to ignore it and pretend like we know more than we do. We have to gather what knowledge we do, while recognizing that solipcism means our knowledge might be totally wrong.Which is why the conclusions of science are tentative, and why the goal of science is not the truth, which cannot be known, but the development of models that make accurate predicitions about what we will observe. Well, it doesn't really matter to the practice of science. We do science the same way whether or not solipcism is true. It's not a statement about how we get knowledge, but rather, a statement about what our knowledge is. No matter if we're in reality or in the Matrix, a good scientific model makes valid predictions about what we're going to experience in the future. No, it's not a theory. It's an unrefutable statement about the nature of our knowledge. I guess you still don't understand. I do use it at every time. It's not something you "use", it's an inescapable condition of our knowledge. And I am indeed aware of that condition all the time.But it doesn't matter to the practice of science, because a useful scientific model makes the same predicitions about what you'll experience, no matter if its based on "real reality" or the fictions of a Matrix. "If the brain were simple enough for us to understand, we wouldn't be able to."

And you're responding to arguments that I don't remember making. We're clearly talking past each other. What exactly are you on about? The assertion was made, or at least implied, that its unreasonable to suggest that naturalistic processes would lead to an organism capable of perceiving truth.I'm refuting that claim by pointing out that we, as humans, are not capable of perceiving the truth. That's why I brought up solipcism, to make that point. That's not why I brought up solipcism, and I never used it to attack the assertion that we have a thing called consciousness.But I dispute that we know that we have consciousness, because we don't know what consciousness is, so how can we know we have it? That's not solipcism, that's pointing out that you can hardly expect to be taken seriously when you say that "we have a thing called consciousness", and then the only definition of consciousness is "that thing we have as humans." Unfortunately it destroys that one too; we percieve that we have experiences, or at least I do, but that's about it. I have experiences; everybody else around me says they do and it behooves me to play along with them, and often what they say they experience and what I do experience seems to line up. So we see what we can all agree we're experiencing, and then we try to guess what we're going to experience next.It's called "science." It has everything to do with the argument; there's no need for ludicrous recourse to supernatural creators to explain how the result of a random process can see the truth of the world, if we know that we aren't necessarily seeing the truth of the world.That's the argument I'm making, and that's why I brought up solipcism.

That's Lewis's argument, though. Why? "Intent" is just a name we apply to human behavior; and all human behavior is simply a consequence of the laws of physics. And as I keep explaining, over and over and over again, that's entirely consistent with solipcism. The proper response to solipcism is not "what's the point", the proper response is the scientific method. No, that's not what I said. What I said was that solipcism means that we can't know if something indescribable actually exists.That's it. That's not saying that humans aren't conscious, that's not saying that we can't say they're conscious. It's saying that we can't know that consciousness is a real thing that exists. That's it. Why would the observation that I have experiences necessitate my existence? We have all the suppositions we need; I already laid them out. I observe that I have experiences, I'll act as though you do, too.That's all we need. Anything else is just me letting you stack the deck in Lewis's favor, which I'm not inclined to do.

If you think I disagree then you still don't understand my argument.

But that's just pretend. It's pretend to assume that the truth can be known because we know that it cannot be.Why would we start our search for truth with an erroneous proposition? How is that at all coherent? Why would you bother with your "logical philosophical argument for the purpose of finding truth" when we know that what you'll wind up with won't have anything to do with the truth?I just don't get it. You seem to have this idea that you can dispose of the solipcistic condition by just assuming it doesn't apply to you. How does that make any sense? That's certainly concise, and its fairly accurate. Since we can't get to the truth, we have to settle for predicting what experiences we will have. (In other words making our VCR's work. Which is not to say that I reject theoretical or "basic" science, of course.)

"Truth" being shorthand for "knowledge about the real reality of the universe", not "all things that are true." I either wasn't quite clear, or you're being deliberately disingenuous. Solipsism (you're right about the spelling, thank you) is a statement about the gathering of knowledge, not necessarily the nature of knowledge. Right, exactly. That's what I'm talking about, here. I'm not saying we can't know anything at all; we just can't know anything about the physical reality of the universe. We can merely develop models that make accurate predictions and explain observations. Incorrect. Incorrect. Incorrect. If by "truth" you mean "things that are true", then obviously you can know some truths. If by "truth" you mean "the physical reality of the universe", then no, you can't know that truth. And you simply can't dispose of that limitation by assuming it doesn't apply to you, or pretending that you can know truths that you simply cannot know. If they're unverifiable, they're neither true nor false; its incoherent to say they are true or false because for an unverifiable statement, true and false are the same thing, by definition.