Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see.

[stevevw]

Let's focus on your last sentence - "It excludes the supernatural as a priori". Do you mean that the scientific method excludes the supernatural from being evaluated / assessed by the scientific method? Or do you mean that the scientific method says that supernatural phenomena do not even exist in reality?

If you are saying the former, I agree. If you are saying the latter, I would ask you to provide evidence that the scientific method does not allow for the possibility that supernatural "things" can be real.

Do you see the difference? I suggest that the scientific method is simply silent on some issues, for example the existence of some types of "gods".

Yeah I understand this but its not so straight forward as people like to think. In practice Methodological naturalism says science can only use explanations that involve quantities like mass, energy, time ect. So its telling us how science actually works, the type of explanations it can use, the logic involved and conclusions that are scientifically acceptable.

But if we think about it science is telling us something about reality, about new realities such as elementary particles, genes, quasars and dark matter ect and metaphysically explanations about reality in the deepest sense is not so easily seperated. So it seems but a small step to claim science must be based on naturalism to saying only naturalistic phenomena only exist.

So if science cannot explain something it does not exist. But this is metaphysical naturalism because its making conclusions about what reality exists. Its stating that only natural things exist. As usually interpreted it states in effect that the supernatural does not exist and that all explanations of phenomena can be made by explanations that fall within methodological naturalism.

Metaphysical naturalism is often claimed as a scientific conclusion or an inference from science, without explicit acknowledgment of its philosophical and not its scientific claim alone. We see this even in this thread where some have said for example "you have proved nothing", or "its all Woo" ect. Its using science to make metaphysical claims and not scientific ones.

It seems we cannot easily seperate philosophy from the science in reality and without that connection science would lose its authority as to what it is professing to do which is tell us something about what 'is' what really exists.

 

[stevevw]

I think you are making a fundamental error - you appear to believe that because the scientific method can only investigate physical naturalistic behaviour and processes, it therefore denies that the things that it cannot investigate could possibly exist in reality.

This would be like a blind person declaring "because I cannot access the subjective experience of vision, vision as a subjective experience does not even exist."

No I think that is inherent in the science method. When it explains that consciousness is an epiphenomena (a secondary phenomena of the physical brain) its also wiping out any alternative explanation. Its claiming to have solved the riddle of consciousness and its not something beyond brain but is brain.

If someone was to say "i disagree" then the scientists will naturally refute this with the science. We cannot take the scientists out of the equation so metaphysically, epistemically its also claiming that this is the only way we can know reality.

 

[expos4ever]

So, if we can't tell the difference, how do we know there's a difference? We certainly have digital entities that can pass the Turing test for congnition.

The fact that we cannot tell that there is a difference between a zombie with no subjective experience and a "regular human" is not relevant to what I am trying to say - the fact that is conceivable that there could, in fact, be a difference is what matters, at least for the purposes of what I am trying to get across.

 

[expos4ever]

Model (or Mind) dependent reality.
Until a difference shows up, there is no difference.

Not sure what you are trying to say with "Until a difference shows up, there is no difference". Consider the statement "There are, at time t, an odd number of ducks alive on planet earth". There is a matter of fact about this - there is, in point of fact, either an odd number or an even number of ducks at time t. The fact that it might be impossible for us to determine whether the number is odd or even is a separate matter.

To me, it is obvious that there can, in principle, be truths - facts of the matter about the world - that are inaccessible to us. The fact that we cannot determine that such and such is the case does not mean that such and such is, in fact, not the case.

 

[expos4ever]

No I think that is inherent in the science method. When it explains that consciousness is an epiphenomena (a secondary phenomena of the physical brain) its also wiping out any alternative explanation. Its claiming to have solved the riddle of consciousness and its not something beyond brain but is brain.

It sounds like you are saying that the scientific method rules out even the possiblity that consciousness is anything other than an epiphomena. But that is not correct. The scientific method, by its very nature, invites critiiques of its conclusions.

If someone was to say "i disagree" then the scientists will naturally refute this with the science. We cannot take the scientists out of the equation so metaphysically, epistemically its also claiming that this is the only way we can know reality.

I think you are mistaken (assuming I understand you) - I do not believe the scientific method denies that there are ways to know reality other than via the scientific method. Of course, individual scientists are free to believe that anything that is not "determinable" by scientific investigation. But I think the more reasonable position is this: Consider an hypothesis H. If the truth or falsity of H cannot be determined by application of scientific principles, H could still be true in fact. Or it could be false.

 

[The Barbarian]

The fact that we cannot tell that there is a difference between a zombie with no subjective experience and a "regular human" is not relevant to what I am trying to say - the fact that is conceivable that there could, in fact, be a difference is what matters, at least for the purposes of what I am trying to get across.

I happen to think there is a difference. It certainly is conceivable that there is a difference.

Panpsychism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[partinobodycular]

We see this even in this thread where some have said for example "you have proved nothing", or "its all Woo" ect. I

Deciding what is and isn't 'Woo' can be extremely subjective. But I'll try to explain why I believe that your claims of the supernatural as an explanation for the 'mind' constitutes 'Woo'.

First off you seem to have concluded that the only natural explanation for the mind is that it's an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. Which suggests that you've summarily rejected every other possible explanation and gone directly to "it's supernatural". Specifically you've rejected any of the following as being a possible source, directly or indirectly, for the mind.

quantum vacumn, fields, forces, chemicals or particles

Yup, you've pretty much tossed any possible physical explanation right out the door from the get-go. Why? Apparently because you've concluded that any natural physical explanation just isn't possible... end of story. No discussion necessary.

Instead you've decided to go with "magic", although you've attempted to legitimize it by calling it 'supernatural', as if that explains anything. Which it doesn't, it just gives you grounds to proclaim anyone who rejects it as being close-minded. That's a nifty tool to have, but it doesn't actually bolster your case.

Second, you haven't given us any explanation whatsoever as to how this mind goes about creating 'physical' reality... it just does it... with no physical or metaphysical explanation whatsoever. Which makes it sheer unadulterated magic. And I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but sheer unadulterated magic is 'Woo'.

If you want your position to rise above the level of 'Woo' then you're going to have to give us more than simply your belief that physical reality can't create itself, therefore the mind. It's a 'God of the Gaps' argument, only with the mind as a stand-in for God.

Sorry, but that's how I see it, and that doesn't mean that I've summarily rejected it. It just means that you've got a very, very weak case.

 

[SelfSim]

Not sure what you are trying to say with "Until a difference shows up, there is no difference". Consider the statement "There are, at time t, an odd number of ducks alive on planet earth". There is a matter of fact about this - there is, in point of fact, either an odd number or an even number of ducks at time t. The fact that it might be impossible for us to determine whether the number is odd or even is a separate matter.

To me, it is obvious that there can, in principle, be truths - facts of the matter about the world - that are inaccessible to us.

Well, those aspects might be currently inaccessible to us, but I think that also means they can't be physical 'facts' about duck population yet, no(?)

The fact that we cannot determine that such and such is the case does not mean that such and such is, in fact, not the case.

I think we're in agreement here .. except in our interpretation of 'facts' supposedly existing before testing(?)
We can surely draw strong inferences from a math model (and other evidence).. but they're still inferences .. and not physical fact.

 

[The Barbarian]

I do not believe the scientific method denies that there are ways to know reality than via the scientific method. Of course, individual scientists are free to believe that anything that is not "determinable" by scientific investigation. But I think the more reasonable position is this: Consider an hypothesis H. If the truth or falsity of H cannot be determined by application of scientific principles, H could still be true in fact. Or it could be false.

Today's winner. (my emphasis)

Strictly speaking,if it can't at least in principle be tested, it isn't a hypothesis.

 

[SelfSim]

Consider an hypothesis H. If the truth or falsity of H cannot be determined by application of scientific principles, H could still be true in fact. Or it could be false.

.. Strictly speaking,if it can't at least in principle be tested, it isn't a hypothesis.

Agreed.

There is also the other case where some hypothesis (or the test) itself is flawed, (but is not known to be so before execution), and thus leads to inconclusive results. Eg: the Mars Viking Life experiments carried out in situ during the 1970s:

At the time, the total absence of organic material on the surface made the results of the biology experiments moot, since metabolism involving organic compounds were what those experiments were designed to detect. The general scientific community surmises that the Viking's biological tests remain inconclusive, and can be explained by purely chemical processes

 

[sjastro]

Deciding what is and isn't 'Woo' can be extremely subjective. But I'll try to explain why I believe that your claims of the supernatural as an explanation for the 'mind' constitutes 'Woo'.

First off you seem to have concluded that the only natural explanation for the mind is that it's an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. Which suggests that you've summarily rejected every other possible explanation and gone directly to "it's supernatural". Specifically you've rejected any of the following as being a possible source, directly or indirectly, for the mind.



Yup, you've pretty much tossed any possible physical explanation right out the door from the get-go. Why? Apparently because you've concluded that any natural physical explanation just isn't possible... end of story. No discussion necessary.

Instead you've decided to go with "magic", although you've attempted to legitimize it by calling it 'supernatural', as if that explains anything. Which it doesn't, it just gives you grounds to proclaim anyone who rejects it as being close-minded. That's a nifty tool to have, but it doesn't actually bolster your case.

Second, you haven't given us any explanation whatsoever as to how this mind goes about creating 'physical' reality... it just does it... with no physical or metaphysical explanation whatsoever. Which makes it sheer unadulterated magic. And I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but sheer unadulterated magic is 'Woo'.

If you want your position to rise above the level of 'Woo' then you're going to have to give us more than simply your belief that physical reality can't create itself, therefore the mind. It's a 'God of the Gaps' argument, only with the mind as a stand-in for God.

Sorry, but that's how I see it, and that doesn't mean that I've summarily rejected it. It just means that you've got a very, very weak case.

The fallacious arguments put forward by the OP are typical of creationist and intelligent design proponents, in this case science is "limited" of not incorporating the supernatural.
The only alternative is intelligent design as the default position where no explanation is necessary of how science and the supernatural are supposed to work together.

 

[stevevw]

Deciding what is and isn't 'Woo' can be extremely subjective. But I'll try to explain why I believe that your claims of the supernatural as an explanation for the 'mind' constitutes 'Woo'.

First off you seem to have concluded that the only natural explanation for the mind is that it's an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. Which suggests that you've summarily rejected every other possible explanation and gone directly to "it's supernatural". Specifically you've rejected any of the following as being a possible source, directly or indirectly, for the mind.

Your missing the point. The reason why consciousness is considered an epiphenomena of the physical brain is to link its cause back to a physical cause within the naturalistic world. Quantum vacumn, fields, forces, chemicals or particles are also within the naturalistic causes. You have to reject those naturalistic causes because they fall under the same naturalistic explanations.

I am open to any cause that can explain whats going on or better explain things. Quantum vacumn, fields, forces, chemicals or particles or the physical brain and all its neural correlations of consciousness don't explain consciousness itself but rather describe behaviour.

Yup, you've pretty much tossed any possible physical explanation right out the door from the get-go. Why? Apparently because you've concluded that any natural physical explanation just isn't possible... end of story. No discussion necessary.

There is good reason. Its known as the Hard Problem of Consciousness. That is theres an explanatory gap between explanations describing naturalistic and physical processes which are based on quantities and consciousness which is understood through qualitative experiences (qualia). A neuron or particle does not contain the qualitative experience of the color red or a sunset.

We can't measures these and find qualititative stuff but only quantitative stuff. So methodological naturalism is not designed to measure qualitative stuff. Even Galilao knew this when he seperated the science method (math) from the inner life such as souls.

Instead you've decided to go with "magic", although you've attempted to legitimize it by calling it 'supernatural', as if that explains anything. Which it doesn't, it just gives you grounds to proclaim anyone who rejects it as being close-minded. That's a nifty tool to have, but it doesn't actually bolster your case.

I think your misrepresenting what I said. I'm not so much talking about the natural and supernatural as far as magical answers but as to how aspects of reality cannot be explained by material naturalism and that there is an aspect of reality that is beyond the material explanations. That aspect beyond could be anything.

Some posit Mind and consciousness itself, the observer effect in QM, Panphysicism, others say its Math, Information or Knowledge and still others posit unknown dimensions like with string theory. The point is these are all attempts to explain what we know is real our conscious experience which science cannot explain its fundemental nature because it doesn't conform to space and time.

Second, you haven't given us any explanation whatsoever as to how this mind goes about creating 'physical' reality... it just does it... with no physical or metaphysical explanation whatsoever. Which makes it sheer unadulterated magic. And I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but sheer unadulterated magic is 'Woo'.

I have already upsteam in this thread. If you look at my posts in other threads you will see them full of every possible idea or explanations mentioning all the above ideas such as how Math and Information map so well onto the objective world implying that Information may be the fundemental basis, or ideas along the line of Panphysicism which posits consciousness as fundemental.

Or the many quantum interpretations which place consciousness and Mind central to fundemental reality such as Eugene Wigner (Wigner's Friend) and John Wheeler experiements as well as other well known physicists and philosophers of science like Stapp, Heisenberg, von Neumann, Roger Penrose, Chalmers, Bohm and Koch to name a few.

If you want your position to rise above the level of 'Woo' then you're going to have to give us more than simply your belief that physical reality can't create itself, therefore the mind. It's a 'God of the Gaps' argument, only with the mind as a stand-in for God.

Sorry, but that's how I see it, and that doesn't mean that I've summarily rejected it. It just means that you've got a very, very weak case.

Perhaps you need to understand what I have said first and not base your objections on misrepresentations of my arguements. The possibilities I have referred to are not just limited to God but more about the non material nature of reality.

 

[stevevw]

It sounds like you are saying that the scientific method rules out even the possiblity that consciousness is anything other than an epiphomena. But that is not correct. The scientific method, by its very nature, invites critiiques of its conclusions.

But only critiques that fall within the natural material explanations will be allowed to begin with.

I think you are mistaken (assuming I understand you) - I do not believe the scientific method denies that there are ways to know reality other than via the scientific method. Of course, individual scientists are free to believe that anything that is not "determinable" by scientific investigation. But I think the more reasonable position is this: Consider an hypothesis H. If the truth or falsity of H cannot be determined by application of scientific principles, H could still be true in fact. Or it could be false.

If the scientific method acknowledges that there are other ways to know reality apart from the science method (measuring material natural processes) then would not that mean the science method is not really accounting for fundemental reality because they admit there is stuff that could be influencing reality that they can never tell us about.

The findings will never be complete and they will never be able to find the real explanation because there will always be something missing they can never measure beyond their reach. Nor could it tell us that the behaviour being measured is not the result of some deeper underlying reality that is not a material reality. Descriptions are descriptions and tell us nothing of fundemental reality.

Fo example we could be living in a Simulation and what we think we are measuring as objective reality is just a program we have been linked into. Like we are just measuring the surface relection of something deeper and more fundemental like Information.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If the scientific method acknowledges that there are other ways to know reality apart from the science method (measuring material natural processes) then would not that mean the science method is not really accounting for fundemental reality because they admit there is stuff that could be influencing reality that they can never tell us about.

The "scientific method" is just a collection of procedures used to do science. It is not some sort of philosophy and the scientific method does not commen[t] on things outside of it.

 

[partinobodycular]

Perhaps you need to understand what I have said first and not base your objections on misrepresentations of my arguements.

Trust me I've been trying very hard to do just that. As a solipsist I'm willing to entertain a vast array of possible explanations, and that includes the idea of something akin to a mind being the fundamental basis of reality. But when I try to do that I end up somewhere completely different from where you end up.

When asking myself whether the fundamental property of reality is a mind, the first thing that I have to ask myself is... what do I mean by a mind? Do I mean something that has memories, and experiences, and knowledge, and understands Archimedes' screw, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle, and FIFO. Or do I mean something simpler than that, and if so, then how simple? Does it need to have a concept of up and down, and hot and cold, and black and white? Or can it be even simpler than that? Perhaps all it needs are the concepts of spin, and charge, and mass... and from that the entire physical world just spontaneously pops into existence. Or maybe it's even simpler than that, and all it needs is the concept of 'I Am', for inherent in the concept of existing, is the concept of not existing. And perhaps that dichotomy, that uncertainty between what's possible and what's not possible... what exists and what doesn't exist, is what we perceive of as a quantum field. It's the boundary between that which only has the potential to exist, and that which actually does exist. And if you would like to describe what's on the other side of that boundary as a mind, i.e. the holder of what's possible, then I have no problem with that. But simply referring to it as 'supernatural' tells me absolutely nothing, and allows you to stick anything you want to in there, with complete impunity.

So you see, I can ponder the concept of a mind as being fundamental, but I can't do it without charging headlong into 'Woo'. And I don't like 'Woo'. I'm okay with visiting now and then, but I don't wanna live there.

What I wanna know is what you mean by a mind, and how you get from that to everything else. I realize that those are difficult questions to answer, but they're the answers I need.

 

[stevevw]

The "scientific method" is just a collection of procedures used to do science. It is not some sort of philosophy and the scientific method does not commend on things outside of it.

It is like some sort of philosophy because the method (collection of procedures used to do science) tells us epistemically that theres only one way to know what reality is ontologically.

 

[stevevw]

Trust me I've been trying very hard to do just that. As a solipsist I'm willing to entertain a vast array of possible explanations, and that includes the idea of something akin to a mind being the fundamental basis of reality. But when I try to do that I end up somewhere completely different from where you end up.

When asking myself whether the fundamental property of reality is a mind, the first thing that I have to ask myself is... what do I mean by a mind? Do I mean something that has memories, and experiences, and knowledge, and understands Archimedes' screw, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle, and FIFO. Or do I mean something simpler than that, and if so, then how simple? Does it need to have a concept of up and down, and hot and cold, and black and white? Or can it be even simpler than that? Perhaps all it needs are the concepts of spin, and charge, and mass... and from that the entire physical world just spontaneously pops into existence. Or maybe it's even simpler than that, and all it needs is the concept of 'I Am', for inherent in the concept of existing, is the concept of not existing. And perhaps that dichotomy, that uncertainty between what's possible and what's not possible... what exists and what doesn't exist, is what we perceive of as a quantum field. It's the boundary between that which only has the potential to exist, and that which actually does exist. And if you would like to describe what's on the other side of that boundary as a mind, i.e. the holder of what's possible, then I have no problem with that. But simply referring to it as 'supernatural' tells me absolutely nothing, and allows you to stick anything you want to in there, with complete impunity.

So you see, I can ponder the concept of a mind as being fundamental, but I can't do it without charging headlong into 'Woo'. And I don't like 'Woo'. I'm okay with visiting now and then, but I don't wanna live there.

What I wanna know is what you mean by a mind, and how you get from that to everything else. I realize that those are difficult questions to answer, but they're the answers I need.

To me from what I have read and understand everything you just mentioned is a possibility and I think I have linked several articles related to those ideas. Like Pansphysicism and its many derivatives which basically posits that consciousness or Mind is everywhere, in everything even electrons having some rudimentary consciousness. This also seemed to be the view of the physicists I mentioned.

Mind can also mean that because reality can be broken down in different ways by Math and Information and how knowledge seems to change reality it seems these are all ideas based on Mind being fundemental.

So its not any particular idea that is right or that we even know what to exactly look for. Its that the paradigm of Mind or consciousness being fundemental is how we will come to understand reality better rather than just through the material science paradigm.

 

[partinobodycular]

To me from what I have read and understand everything you just mentioned is a possibility and I think I have linked several articles related to those ideas. Like Pansphysicism and its many derivatives which basically posits that consciousness or Mind is everywhere, in everything even electrons having some rudimentary consciousness. This also seemed to be the view of the physicists I mentioned.

Mind can also mean that because reality can be broken down in different ways by Math and Information and how knowledge seems to change reality it seems these are all ideas based on Mind being fundemental.

So its not any particular idea that is right or that we even know what to exactly look for. Its that the paradigm of Mind or consciousness being fundemental is how we will come to understand reality better rather than just through the material science paradigm.

Okay, but now I need to take the nonsense which was my previous post, and try to nudge it a little closer to the 'Not Woo'. To do that, rather than referring to a mind, I'm going to refer to a quantum field. And I'm going to suggest that that quantum field lies at the very border between existing and not existing. Between having an extension in space and time, and having no perceptible physical existence at all. Now from that I can invoke Hawking's hypothesis of something spontaneously arising from nothing, and by doing that I can begin to legitimize what had previously only seemed like 'Woo'. It's still 'Woo', I've just reframed it in terminology that a materialist might accept, namely that that quantum field is the fundamental source of physical reality.

And voila, no need for the supernatural, just a simple quantum field lying at the border between existing and not existing. Between what could be, and what is.

Unfortunately, this is where you and I have a problem, because you insist upon referring to that quantum field as 'something'. But I'm going to beg to differ, and suggest that what that quantum field represents is the very first act of consciousness... which is the realization that 'I am'. It may look like a physical thing, and it may be modelable like a physical thing, but our inability to interact with it suggests that strictly speaking it may not be a physical thing at all. And if you want to refer to it as a mind, then you're more than welcome to do so. Who am I to argue otherwise.

It's at this point that we're left with a dichotomy, wherein the materialist can claim that reality simply arises from a quantum field. No mind, nor God, nor supernatural explanation required. While the anti-materialist can claim the exact opposite, that in glimpsing that quantum field we have in fact gotten a peek into the mind of God. A mind in which all things are possible, and existence first comes to the simplest realization of all, that 'I am'.

Now this is all still just 'Woo', and it's pretty apt to remain 'Woo' until someone a whole lot smarter than me or Einstein can figure out how to reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity. And even then the question still won't be answered, because quite frankly it may not be answerable.

So the best that I as a solipsist can do is to appreciate this for the mental exercise that it was, and go back to accepting reality and life for the sadly brief and fragile experience that it appears to be. I'll leave God to do God, and you to do you, and I'll wander off into the 'Woo' every now and again, just because I can.

Oh, and I'll sometimes look like an idiot by spouting this nonsense on computer forums as if I have a clue as to what I'm talking about.

 

[SelfSim]

Trust me I've been trying very hard to do just that. As a solipsist I'm willing to entertain a vast array of possible explanations, and that includes the idea of something akin to a mind being the fundamental basis of reality. But when I try to do that I end up somewhere completely different from where you end up.

When asking myself whether the fundamental property of reality is a mind, the first thing that I have to ask myself is... what do I mean by a mind? Do I mean something that has memories, and experiences, and knowledge, and understands Archimedes' screw, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle, and FIFO. Or do I mean something simpler than that, and if so, then how simple? Does it need to have a concept of up and down, and hot and cold, and black and white? Or can it be even simpler than that? Perhaps all it needs are the concepts of spin, and charge, and mass... and from that the entire physical world just spontaneously pops into existence. Or maybe it's even simpler than that, and all it needs is the concept of 'I Am', for inherent in the concept of existing, is the concept of not existing. And perhaps that dichotomy, that uncertainty between what's possible and what's not possible... what exists and what doesn't exist, is what we perceive of as a quantum field. It's the boundary between that which only has the potential to exist, and that which actually does exist. And if you would like to describe what's on the other side of that boundary as a mind, i.e. the holder of what's possible, then I have no problem with that. But simply referring to it as 'supernatural' tells me absolutely nothing, and allows you to stick anything you want to in there, with complete impunity.

I feel for ya, man! Trapped in the cicularity of Solipsism!
The first thing to notice from the above, is that you're driven to model your own mind, yet that part, for some bizarre reason, is completely steam-rollered over in the rush to generate solipsistic woo .. (aka: the very place you apparently don't wanna go).
Minds create models .. including the one for itself .. Its simple .. and also abundantly evidenced.

So you see, I can ponder the concept of a mind as being fundamental, but I can't do it without charging headlong into 'Woo'. And I don't like 'Woo'. I'm okay with visiting now and then, but I don't wanna live there.

What I wanna know is what you mean by a mind, and how you get from that to everything else. I realize that those are difficult questions to answer, but they're the answers I need.

I'll try (again): we have only models and our ability to test those models, (logic is then needed for testing), or alternatively, our ability to simply choose a belief system without the need to test it.

Meaning comes from making and testing models under the auspices of the rules of logic, or from simply choosing beliefs, (eg: @stevevw chooses the latter). That's it, there's nothing else that our minds do that we could associate with our other fundamental concept of 'knowing'. Even if you drop a rock on your toe, and you say 'I know I'm in pain right now', all I have to do is ask you what 'I' is, what 'now' is, and what 'pain' is, and you will see all the modeling you are doing to be able to 'know you are in pain right now'.

But all this really is an aside .. no need to debate it here. (This post is just me trying to throw you a friendly life saving ring to help you rescue yourself).

 

[SelfSim]

Unfortunately, this is where you and I have a problem, because you insist upon referring to that quantum field as 'something'. But I'm going to beg to differ, and suggest that what that quantum field represents is the very first act of consciousness... which is the realization that 'I am'. It may look like a physical thing, and it may be modelable like a physical thing, but our inability to interact with it suggests that strictly speaking it may not be a physical thing at all. And if you want to refer to it as a mind, then you're more than welcome to do so. Who am I to argue otherwise.

Friend, its a model. You even said so yourself above .. then just completely ignored that important observation .. why?

So the best that I as a solipsist can do is to appreciate this for the mental exercise that it was, and go back to accepting reality and life for the sadly brief and fragile experience that it appears to be. I'll leave God to do God, and you to do you, and I'll wander off into the 'Woo' every now and again, just because I can.

Oh, and I'll sometimes look like an idiot by spouting this nonsense on computer forums as if I have a clue as to what I'm talking about.

I suggest an attempt at making the Solipsism useful by applying the scientific method, before going back 'round the circular loop it creates.