Nothing, even multiple people witnessing an event on a massive scale could be chalked up to mass hallucination.

Nobody buys into that insanity though. It's just generally accepted that reality is this thing we're all experiencing that's real. What happened has probably happened, and it isnt some giant matrix with every one experiencing their own reality or some nonsense...
Get your head out of the clouds, stoner. I have some self help books if you require guidance.... are you hungry?

At 2/23/15 08:03 PM, CorpseGrinderClock wrote:

At 2/23/15 04:28 AM, Ejit wrote: How do you want me to prove it exactly?

That's kind of the point.

Do you want empirical verification? I was under the impression the whole premise of the thread was that ideas can't be empirically verified

Yes.

Another inconsistency in your argument, then. You want me to empirically prove something, but you don't believe in the possibility of empirical proof. So your argument is unfalsifiable by your own terms.

But if you are conscious in any given instant, then a frozen instant doesn't imply a lack of consciousness, it implies an inability to perceive outside of that particular frame of reference.

Just to reiterate, my argument is that you aren't conscious in a given instant, and that consciousness is a process requiring stimulus and neural transfer, that therefore operates in time. A computer that can't receive input or output because it exists in physical stasis can't compute anything. A person in stasis i.e. at a given instant can't process anything, so isn't conscious.

And that's all there is to it. Pink Floyd were mostly rubbish, and the revolution is over. Space and time exist, and so do I. Sorry haters.

At 2/25/15 05:44 PM, AnonOfCali wrote: Stuff that makes sense then calling you a stoner because I'm an schmuck on the internet.

I resent stoners for making it so that everyone calls me a stoner whenever I discuss anything marginally more profound than celebrity gossip.

At 2/25/15 06:11 PM, Ejit wrote: Another inconsistency in your argument, then. You want me to empirically prove something, but you don't believe in the possibility of empirical proof.

Prove me wrong.

At 2/25/15 06:11 PM, Ejit wrote: So your argument is unfalsifiable by your own terms.

I am questioning even the concept of falsifiability here.

At 2/25/15 06:11 PM, Ejit wrote: Just to reiterate, my argument is that you aren't conscious in a given instant, and that consciousness is a process requiring stimulus and neural transfer, that therefore operates in time.

Something which you assume based on things that you perceive only in a given instant.

At 2/25/15 06:11 PM, Ejit wrote:

A computer that can't receive input or output because it exists in physical stasis can't compute anything.

You continue making assumptions from a fourth-dimensional perspective that you simply have no frame of reference for due to the immersive nature of your particular experience. You keep applying what you consider to be relevant examples from an outside perspective, again with (almost literally) every assumption ever behind them.

At 2/25/15 06:11 PM, Ejit wrote: And that's all there is to it. Pink Floyd were mostly rubbish, and the revolution is over.

Yeah just keep taking shots in the dark. When did this become personal for you to where you felt you needed to pick fights?

At 2/25/15 06:34 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 2/21/15 06:48 PM, CorpseGrinderClock wrote: what can we prove at all?

Define what
Define prove
Define prove at all

I like the first one best.

At 2/25/15 08:07 PM, CorpseGrinderClock wrote: Prove me wrong.

I am questioning even the concept of falsifiability here.

.

Something which you assume based on things that you perceive only in a given instant.

Not in a given instant, in a given time.

You continue making assumptions from a fourth-dimensional perspective that you simply have no frame of reference for due to the immersive nature of your particular experience. You keep applying what you consider to be relevant examples from an outside perspective, again with (almost literally) every assumption ever behind them.

I think I'm being pretty reasonable in assuming that a process like consciousness requires the ability for movement, impulses, interaction between matter. It doesn't rely on empirical judgement, and seems to be pretty analytical (that a process of consciousness relies on time).

Yeah just keep taking shots in the dark. When did this become personal for you to where you felt you needed to pick fights?

Hardly picking a fight, if anything I was trying to show a bit of parodic self-awareness. I'll leave it there though.

At 2/26/15 06:29 AM, Ejit wrote:

At 2/25/15 08:07 PM, CorpseGrinderClock wrote: Prove me wrong.

I am questioning even the concept of falsifiability here.

.

Congrats, you're reached the topic.

At 2/26/15 06:29 AM, Ejit wrote: I think I'm being pretty reasonable in assuming...

To assume anything at all is to miss the whole point of the thread.

And basing those assumptions on your memories this instant (yes, this instant, which is the only thing you can verify that you have ever percieved) is unsound for verifying the validity of those memories.

Lol, this guy