So, again, please provide the scientific experiment that would show that this world is not created by my mind.
Saying we have no existence of the outside world, you may as well say that every scientific experiment is bogus. I find that extremely unlikely.
I have enough trust in science to know you claims are rubbish.
I will say that we never measure the world directly. Anything we collect from the outside world is recreated here in our brains. But these photons hitting off our retina are real physical representations of a real object reality we exist in. This is not evidence that the objective world does not exist. The fact that we gain this information from the outside is rather evidence supporting that an objective world actually exists.
Now, these conversations have gone far off from the OP's original discussion... You've been feebly trying to prove the OP wrong because we cannot prove we are not ''constantly'' in a dream state. Your arguments are complete psuedoscience in its finest.
Making the assumption that there exists an objective world is useful, that doesn't make it any less of an assumption though. Science has nothing to say on the matter, it is not a scientific question, it is not a hypothesis that can be falsified, in other words there exists no experiment that can falsify it either way.Saying we have no existence of the outside world, you may as well say that every scientific experiment is bogus. I find that extremely unlikely.
Or to quote the very first response you had in this thread:
CM1: Provide an experiment that would falsify the hypothesis that the world is a product of my mind. Describe this experimental setup in detail, and specifically state what result would show that the world i perceive is not a product of my mind.
Failing to do that, there are only two possible resolutions.
Either you are unaware that a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable and your knowledge of the scientific method which you claim to base your statements on can be seriously called into question, or you are aware of that but for some reason think that doesn't apply to the hypotheses you make up.
I am open to new suggestions, but what you are suggesting is quite frankly, Hollywood material. Neuroscience is heavily in my favor. This is a science. What you are conjecturing is... ''let your brain seep from your ears'' openness. Thinking the world is a complete utter fabrication, a total dream state where we extract no objective information from any experiment which is designed to probe reality is ... absurd.
Once you realize that all the scientific evidence stacks in the proposal it goes my way, it is hard to consider it going another - sure, cling to these idea's that we live in a dream state constantly and reverse my argument - but yours is hardly scientific which is the whole point.
Get up, a get-get, get down.
Another aspect, what we have been discussing, is what should be, either "the mind is a function of the universe" or "the universe is a function of the mind". (this has no effect on the argument being tautological or not).
You say it must be the former, i'm saying that neither is a scientific hypothesis, and thus neither can be proven nor disproven.
For every experiment you could come up with that purports to show that the world is objective i can state that i could just as well be dreaming about performing that experiment and getting that result. Understand that and we might get somewhere.
If you would have just said "i think it is absurd to think that the universe is a function of the mind", that statement wouldn't be challenged. The thing that is being challenged is your claim that you have proven this using the scientific method, which is simply false. Because that would imply that you have an experiment that shows that an objective world exists, which you must by now realize is impossible (i can always just dream about performing that experiment, just like i could have just dreamt up the entire field of neuroscience).
My argument to him all along was that there is in fact a ''preferred directionality'' and it is the one science agrees with most. The way mathman makes it out is that this tautology is a complete disaster for my conjecture - but he's ignoring the hard scientific facts which back that directionality.
It's like a theory, no one can ever [[prove]] a theory. There are however evidences which lean in the favor of one theory to another. Ignoring those evidences would be a disaster for science in general. We can't similarly just ignore the facts of the direction in which my expression goes.
No, but a scientific theory must be falsifiable, which yours isn't. Ergo it is not scientific, it is metaphysics, it's a belief.Keep in mind my words also that you can never prove a theory
As an aside, does this mean that you retract your claim that you have provided proof (in the scientific sense) for your hypothesis?
I am not answering caveman anymore. He's asking questions I have already answered to him. We've actually covered these evidences way back. His memory must be failing him, but mine hasn't.
For example, you state that "we appeared about 240,000 years ago".
But if the Universe was dependant on the mind of the observer, then that "evidence" would just be another one of the things that mind has "made up".
There's no way to prove the objective "truth" of that "evidence".
Get up, a get-get, get down.
Here is a quick example. Gravity is a force produced by curvature and distortions. A radical and... absurd theory would be linking gravity directly to the electrostatic forces. Just as an example.
Maybe my memory is indeed failing me, but i seem to recall that last time i checked neuroscience was a scientific field, not an experiment.His memory must be failing him, but mine hasn't.