If it's "concrete" I assume you mean it is definite. Not subject to being disproved.
-
-
Replying to @pogsurf
Thats what I assumed you meant by 'impossible to refute.' How cld someone disprove to me that I am thinking?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
What's the concensus here? Is this something we should hold sceptics to, or not let it worry us?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pogsurf
I don't know what you mean. Sceptics don't tend to talk much abt solipsism because they're all about evidence.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I call solipsism my "leap of faith". I cannot disprove it, yet I have deny it in order to live well.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pogsurf
This is the position all rational people are in once they've considered it. Sokal & Bricmont put it well.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @pogsurf
In their refutation of pomo.They say its possible the natural world does not exist but its a reasonable hypothesis that it does
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @pogsurf
And because we accept that it does, we can use science to develop medicine and technology & live longer and achieve things.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @pogsurf
Even if we're not really doing any of that. The only alternative is to do nothing and die.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
No, you could lead an entirely selfish life, and end up locked up in an institution.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
You'd still have to assume reality existed to do that. You have to assume reality exists to do anything.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.