Metaphysics, intelligence, God

[devonin]

Just a few things to chime in with:

Originally Posted by mhss1992

And it is important simply because it’s the only thing whose existence is 100% proven. All of the existence that you know is your sensation, obviously. The only thing you know for sure that exists is your mind. Yeah, I know Descartes already said that.

That's not actually what Descartes said. Descartes' conclusion was that all you can know for a certainty is that you, in some form, exist. He makes NO qualitative or quantitative claims as to how that existance might be expressed. He simply is aware that he, and only he is "A thinking thing" That thinking thing may be completely divorced from all sensation, it may be recieveing inputs of sensation that are completely false. It could be experiencing all kinds of qualia that do not reflect its objective reality. All he can claim with 100% certainty is that he, in some form, is a thing which exists.

This thought experiment obviously doesn’t prove that the observer is “immaterial”, all it does is prove that there is an entity that can be treated separately, regardless of it being physical or not. So, saying “A” and “A’s observer” is really not the same thing. That’s the point.

So what you're saying is that if we agree with your conception of this thought experiment, that you've concluded a mind/body separation, and that the mind is distinct from the body. But what your experiment is really describing is not a switch, but a copy/paste. You're saying "If I take person A, erase every aspect of their existance as though formatting a harddrive, and replace that data with the same data from person B and then also put that into person B's body, that person will go on exactly like they've always been person B" which is true, but doesn't actually prove what you think it does.

If you were to simply make the swap of data between A and B and left them in their bodies, they would IMMIDIATELY notice the problem because there would be a disconnect between their current situation "I am in body A" and their state of mind "I have the mind of person B" You're describing a system whereby you take person A and make them into person B identically, and then conclude that they'd feel as though they'd always been peson B. That's almost tautological.

If you are able to imagine this change, it means that you have the notion of what an "observer" is, even though you deny it.
It's just about understanding the concept. If I say "two people change observers" and nothing else, it means that the part of the brain, or the spirit, or whatever, that's specifically where the sensations occur, is exchanged.

So it seems like what you're getting at, again, is just that the mind and body are not codependant, ie. You could retain the concept of self independant of the physical form you define as your body. Thing is, there's actually no way to test for this, so it's not at all proven, and not at all fact. Descartes said sure, that in addition to knowing he exists, he has no way to know that the existance he percieves through his senses is the objectively correct one, but he certainly can't conclude that it isn't either. For all you know, the mind and body are inextricably connected. Just because you can conceive of something doesn't make it exist. I read sci-fi and fantasy, I can conceive of all kinds of things that don't exist. Arguing that just because you -can- see how that -might- happen, that it being true is "100% proven" is faulty.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

I understand what it would mean to "change perspectives." This could be accomplished by swapping memories alone

Swapping memories would immidiately create a cognitive disconnect because you memories of your body would be faulty compared to the body you were in. But I take your point.

Originally Posted by mhhs1992

The concept of solipsism cannot be proven wrong, because you can't look through the eyes of another person.

It can't be wholly disproven, but there are plenty of compelling arguments to give to a solipsist that shows why their belief is at least highly suspect.

Well, think about it: a universe without any observer has no image, no sound... It's just like pure, invisible data. A "potential" of true existence. It's just silly to talk about the explosion of a star if everything is just some sort of black screen

We're observers, you said so yourself. Why does your inability to imagine a world with no observers lead to belief in a higher intelligence, when we've got plenty of observers running around already? Are you trying to suggest that every physical location in the universe -necessarily- requires an observer all the time? For what purpose? There are rooms in my apartment that no observer currently can see. I suppose one could try to argue that I no longer have any way to know for a fact that those rooms even exist, that there is anything behind the closed door that I can see, but I don't believe that this means that in order for my bedroom and bathroom to actually be real, I have to believe in God.

There's also the fact that I can't conceive the creation or destruction of an observer, and this comes from the black screen thing.

You have self-defined as being an observer. Being the -only- observer whose existance you can actually prove 100%. You cannot conceive of the destruction of your ability to observe? What if I instantaneously converted all the matter composing your body into a neat little pile of carbon, do you think you would still be observing?