Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

Just to nitpick, and so that the money spent on my college philosophy classes gets put some use. It is evidence of existance. And thus subjective experiences are factual, in that they provide proof for a persons existance. They do not qualify as objective evidence. They do qualify as evidence for the existance of itself.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

My only point was that subjective experiences are factual to the person having them. It occurs in the reality and is about the reality we all experience. Since we don't know why we have them, I find it a bit presumptuous to simply discard them as completely irrelevant.They are not objective, yes, but that is only because they are unique to the individual. Opinions are not objective either, but it doesn't make them wrong on all accounts simply because we can't support certain opinions with objective evidence. What's with the we? Who was talking to you? I posted a comment to Rahvin about his comment to shalamabobbi, it was IMO relevant their discussion on the IPU.RAZD and Percy have explained their beliefs about deism to be because of a "feeling" they have that there is a god. This feeling is subjective and has been common throughout the existance of humans. I do not agree with them that their personal subjective experiences confirm their beliefs in a god, this is IMO their own interpretation of the experience itself and by default - or lack of a better definitive answer - they invoke a god-like-entity. What I do see however, is that the experiences themselves are commonly shared and are relevant in some way to the existance of consciousness.How they - RAZD and Percy - correlate this experience to a god, I do not know. IMO god is the default entity that people use when trying to understand their interactions with the universe at a level beyond the normal. And only conscious/aware/sentient beings, currently - and that we know of - can do this.A product of the universe, contemplating about the universe and having unique, subjective experiences that some how connects them with the universe - does this really seem irrelevant to you? Don't be an asshole, I was not playing dumb. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : changed perspective on RAZD and Percys "feelings" about god

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Ok lets get into it then. Rrhain, I would almost have to ask you to define "real" to answer that question. But I will attempt based off of my interpretation of "real".The body that you/me/we experience right now, the thing we call the physical body, is really the phenomenal body, or the body image. In a dream you also experience the body image. When you dream you make a distinction, "thats just dream stuff", but what is the actual difference? And, if you take seriously the insight that one experiences in lucid dreams and the fact that you can control them as you do your physical body image, it can profoundly change the way you look at the "real" world.What you/me/we are experiencing right now is a kind of dream, a special case of dreaming, one in which what I am dreaming is constrained by the sensory input from whatever this thing called the "real/physical" world is. My experience is in my mind, yours in your mind, and we happen to be interacting in this third space called the physical world. But, we don't know how those different spaces(mental, physical) relate to each other. We don't really know whether it makes sense to think of a mental space entirely separate from the physical space, or whether they are in some sense the same thing.So, yes...I would say dreams are as real as what we experience in the physical world just in a different space. It seems like RAZD and Percy are doing just that. Why would you have to take them seriously or not if they've already established that the experience was by them for them? Nor do they claim anything empirical about the experience.The main point to the OP is that the IPU's are not logical arguments, which, if we can dream it, then it's subjective, as subjective as claims for diesm, and as such ARE logical arguments.However, I would also argue that anything that is dreamed and/or experienced subjectively is as real as anything experienced objectively, they just take place in two different spaces(mental, physical) - but are those two spaces really that separate or are they the same thing? My apologies if I misread the context of his statement. I read "they are not evidence. Period"...to which I replied that they are. No further was intended, but I see your point about it being specifically for the existance of a diety. Edited by onifre, : shits and gigglesEdited by onifre, : spelling

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This would be similar to Inattentional blindness

quote:

---

Inattentional blindness, also known as perceptual blindness, is the phenomenon of not being able to see things that are actually there. This can be a result of having no internal frame of reference to perceive the unseen objects, or it can be the result of the mental focus or attention which cause mental distractions. The phenomenon is due to how our minds see and process information.

---

So the lights don't have to be off for you to objectively not realize that you are about to stub your toe. Yet you will stub it and still not have objective evidence as to what you stubbed it on, even with the lights on, due to the fact that our minds can sometimes see and process information in unusual ways that defy our logic, in hindsight. I think love is an illusionary feature added to biological reproduction. But that will be too off topic.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Straggler, I think the point RAZD was trying to make to me in that post was that there are experiences that lack objective evidence that we can point to definitively, yet are still experienced in the physical reality.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Not a damn thing. This sub-topic spun off of one of my replies to Rrhain.Sorry for the off topic deviation.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

We only experience one consciousness. The only way I can know who "you" are is through analogy. You have to explain it.So, yes, I find a solipsists world view to be plausable, cogito ergo sum, right?Show me evidence against it? Materialism?[ABE]: Either way, I would say I hold more to idealism, phenomenalism, or mentalistic monism philosophy. Yes, if you start with the premise that materialism is the proper reality I would agree with you, but there is no objective evidence to support your materialistic philosophy other your subjective interpretation of the reality that you personally experience.The point is that both of our world views are subjective, our personal experiences/qualia are subjective, and they are private. This makes them infallible to oursleves. Because they haven't given any empirical claims about their experiences. IPU makes the empirical claim that there is a pink unicorn that is invisible. In all fairness to both RAZD and Percy, that have not made equal claims. Materialism? That's yours?Shall we measure to see whos is bigger?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : Make point as to where I personally stand

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Our individual world views are subjective and vary from person to person.Even though I may not agree with someone elses world view, for me to know the persons experiences I would have to be that person. I cannot know anythig other than my own mind. I can understand that. Our sensory input is what directs our minds. Experiences are all we have, whether it be subjective or objecitve, they are both equally influencial in the building of peoples world view. I agree, but I also don't equate the experiences as confirmation for god/dieties. The experience is one thing, it has validity, the connection humans make to a god/diesty that created the universe is something completely different. I don't see how we can correlate the two, I'd be curious to see how you do? I agree, it's tough having a brain. I agree. This seems to be because Straggler, and, I think, Rrhain, have a materialistic world view. But even though it's a materialistic world view, it's still their own subjective experiences that tells them that. Seems rather wrong for them to think one world view is better than the other, or that it can be proven wrong empirically. Edited by onifre, : a few added thoughts

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I don't think we're on the same page as to what solipsism is.From wiki:

• My most certain knowledge is the content of my own mindmy thoughts, experiences, affects, etc..
• There is no conceptual or logically necessary link between mental and physicalbetween, say, the occurrence of certain conscious experience or mental states and the 'possession' and behavioral dispositions of a 'body' of a particular kind.
• The experience of a given person is necessarily private to that person.

Basically, all I can know for sure is whats in my mind. I never said I would be in control of you.Here's a quote from Immanuel Kant Critique of Pure Reason, A367 f.:

quote:

---

We are perfectly justified in maintaining that only what is within ourselves can be immediately and directly perceived, and that only my own existence can be the object of a mere perception. Thus the existence of a real object outside me can never be given immediately and directly in perception, but can only be added in thought to the perception, which is a modification of the internal sense, and thus inferred as its external cause ... . In the true sense of the word, therefore, I can never perceive external things, but I can only infer their existence from my own internal perception, regarding the perception as an effect of something external that must be the proximate cause ... . It must not be supposed, therefore, that an idealist is someone who denies the existence of external objects of the senses; all he does is to deny that they are known by immediate and direct perception ...

---

Yes, and from Cartesian doubt is how Descartes came to the conclusion that in order for the doubt to exist, his own conscious self must exist - I think therefore I am.

I'm not arguing against reality not being "real", I'm saying that there is no clear distiction between our minds, ideas and the physical world, the true nature of reality is shown to us by our minds. Pink? ...Maybe invisible, but not pink. And the unicorn part would also be a bit far fetched too.But this does not mean that what RAZD is claiming can only be claims for the supernatural. The statement "I believe there is a god" is simply a statement about a personal subjective experience. It is private and infallible to the person. It is a claim about an experience, period.I have asked RAZD how he correlates the experience to an actual god per se, I will wait for his reply.But, with that aside, his experience is not diminished in any way because I lack the same experience. Nor does claiming "I believe in pink invisible unicorn/s" the same as " I believe there is a god"... IMO, one has established characteristics and as such carries with it empirical claims, while the other is simply a claim to an experience - be it subjective - in the persons mind. Which is the only thing one can know for sure exists - our thoughts, ideas and experiences. I can see where we differ in this opinion, though.So, what would suit RAZD and Percy better, to follow whats in their own mind, or take our word for it? Where do you draw the line between materialism and idealism then, whats your position?

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Straggler,While agreeing with your points on aliens and life elsewhere in the universe, I take issue with this. I think you're trying to force the "belief in a diety" into a conceptual concept, which I would argue that it's not.I agree that the IPU is literally a conceptual concept, but a belief in a diety does not have any conceptual images attached to it like pink or unicorn.I have argued before that IMO god is the default explanation, for lack of a better word, that people go to when they have these experiences. But I don't feel that the subjective experiences they have is made lessen by the fact that they attach it to a diety, I see the experience itself as unique and unexplained. That they personally connect it to a diety does not make them conceptually imagining a diety.Again, I feel RAZD has not made any empirical claims about a diety, he simply states that he believes a diety exists on the basis of these experiences themselves. Who are we, humans who also view the world subjectively, to tell him no such connection should be made because no evidence for a conceptual diety exists? We lack the evidence to prove that.If he were claiming to have seen Jesus, or Allah, or any other god concept that has existed, I would agree with you. But I don't think RAZD fits that.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This is what I've been driving at. I have asked for a more definitive explanation from him, something more explanatory where he can show a distinction between the experience itself and the attached diety to the experience.I don't believe he can make a distinction. I believe his belief in a diety is simply for lack of a better term. I agree. And I'm curious as to where he stands, because I don't believe diesm can be distinguished from athiesm once one asks the diest to define his diety. I know you're not, I didn't phrase that properly. - my bad. The athiest doesn't accept subjective experiences as evidence of anything.The diest accepts, with some reservations - (and this is where I would like to see RAZD be more specific) - that subjective experiences lend some weight to belief in a diety - On the basis that the experience actually happens.Neither has evidence to support or reject their individual world views. They both accept their world views on the basis of their own individual perspective.The only consistency I see from both sides is that both sides only accept their world view.With that being said, if RAZD claims:

quote:

---

an entity distinct and independent of his ability to experience actually exists

---

Then I am with you 100%, And he has failed to demonstrate how it doesn't.But, I'd like to wait and see how he defines it.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

First, let me explain what I meant, perhaps that'll put us on the same page.What I meant by the empirical claims is things like "invisible" "pink" "unicorn". Those are empirical characteristics, such that if you experienced the IPU you could verify that it was the IPU by making the comparison as to what you saw when you had the experience. Then you can claim "I saw an invisible pink unicorn"..."in my mind".That makes empirical claims about the characteristics, even though it is a subjective experience.Saying, "I had an experience that I felt was god" in my opinion makes no empirical claims about the characteristics of god, subjectively, and of course, objectively. Huh? No. What I'm saying is that if you experienced the IPU then by definition you saw, be it in your brain, an "invisible pink unicorn", ignoring of course the obvious "invisible" part. If you have experienced it, and claimed it as such, then you have attested to experiencing just such a unicorn.With the claim "I had an experience and it was god" in no way defines anything about the god.That is why I say the argument is not the same. If he has made empirical claims about the characteristics of god, then my argument is irrelevant. It only applies when no such claims are made. I'd still like to wait for RAZD to say what he means.Edited by onifre, : added "characteristics" to the empirical claims.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

As I wrote in the post, which I didn't in the statement you quoted, I meant empirical claims about the characteristics of the god.Yes, the experience itself is an empirical claim, of the experience, but not of the characteristics of god. My mistake again."If he made any empirical claims about the characteristics of god"...I should have said.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Not unless they're in comedy clubs, bars and strip clubs. Which I don't think they frequent. I don't think you've understood my argument. If RAZD, or anyone, is saying that they can "interact" with said god outside of their experience, as in some physical way, then I agree with you guys; it is the same argument as the IPU.But as I have stated before, I would like a better definition from RAZD because I don't think he's claiming to be able to "interact" with what he has described to be "god".Re-read my posts in their entirety, you'll see that my argument has not been in support of god, but in support of the experience itself. I was curious as to how RAZD correlated that to a god specifically, or is he using god as a default answer for lack of a better definition.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

And you know that not to be true? Please, explain.Not that I think god does do that, but I'd be curious as to how you know that for a fact.Experiences are personal, private and infallible. The only person who knows of it is the person who experienced it. How did you determine what someone elses experience meant? I agree, those 2 conversations would be the same.Here would be mine:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mod: "I had an expeience, I think it was god."Oni: "Well, why do you think it was god?"Mod: "What else could it be? Experiences like that can only have a divine explanation."Oni: "Well, do you know the divine to exist, to be able to correlate the experience with it?"Mod: "No, I don't..."Oni: "Then why don't you reserve your interpretation of the experience until such time that you have a better understanding of what the "divine" is?"Mod: "Perhaps you're right. Well, for what it's worth I had a really cool experience"Oni: "I have too, enjoy them but don't try to over define them"- later, at a bar.........Mod: "Oni, I don't know how to tell you this, but I think I'm falling for you..."Oni: "Mod please, we've gone over this before, it's just not going to work out...I'm not attracted to guys with ponytails"-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes....... Because all people of skepticism would still question the "mysterium" part. But nevertheless, you're right. That is what I've been trying to get RAZD to better define, his experience.I believe it is just that, un mysterium tremendum...which he has taken to define as god for lack of a better definition.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky