It is a rational choice and a standard method, e.g. if you ever studied statistical mechanics. If you had, all of this would have been very clear you.
You're missing the irrational presumption that I pointed out: ie, why do you have to presume that if there is only subjective experience, subjective experience must have unpredictable object-persistence?
That makes no sense. If your point is that we don't know anything about subjective experience, so it's just as likely to have object-persistence or not...the same is true of "objective reality", since we don't have any direct access to that either.
I think your fundamental problem here is that you're assuming "objective reality", and then comparing alternatives to the assumed truth. That would be, quite simply, begging the question...of course if you assume objective reality exists and that it's just like perception now, then perception-as-is matches objective reality.
Remove the presumption that there are things outside perception, and guess what changes? Nothing...there is no reason why you must assume "objective reality" in order to explain your current sensory perception.
When you have a set of distinct independent outcomes you assign equal probability to them. This is probability theory 101.
The problem is that this "distinct set" is based on a faulty presumption. That's what I pointed out last time.
Your subjective experiences will then quickly get out of phase with the objective universe, to your likely physical detriment, just like a madman jumping off a building because he thinks pink clouds will hold him. We clearly do not observe that and are still around to talk about it.
And I'll ask again: When did you magically remove yourself from subjective perception, in order to confirm that people who don't believe in it will "quickly get out of phase with the objective universe"?
If you haven't done that, then how do you know that
even perception of physical detriment is not entirely contained by subjective experience? Or is there some quality about pain that makes not subjectively experienced?
Your problem is that you are keeping the same blind-faith, irrational assumption: that there is something outside your subjective experience. All your responses and supposed "valid knowledge" claims depend on that assumption, even when they purport to be defending it. As such, they aren't justifications...they're just restatements of the same presumption dressed up with some numbers.
The probability is vanishing because all possible outcomes of all tests and observations in a solipsistic universe produce an extremely high number of equally likely solipsistic universes.
Your test is faulty because it presumes that subjective experience must have certain qualities, without having any shred of a reason to do so. You are only testing subjective experience as "not what is now, but rather, something other than what we experience now", and have thereby jury rigged your tests to come up with the answer you want.
This would be like testing the proposition that one racial group commits all crimes by only looking at members of that particular racial group in your study. You have engineered the test to support the blind faith assumption and based all of its criteria on accepting the blind-faith assumption, and did not actually test it.
They are all based on abstract notions of degrees of generality. They cannot do anything without first defining it, and once they define it, they have loaded the answer. Think about it. This is a very profound point.
That's actually terribly mundane. The point is to define it so that you know what you are saying and can thus precisely test your claims. It's not a "loaded answer", it's something you have to do in order to assert anything resembling a hypothesis.
If you don't start with any clearly defined claims, you can't test them. The name can certainly be arbitrary, but if you don't know what it means or what kind of thing it is, you can't even in theory test it. And when you come up with theories to explain the data you do get....what a mess you will have if you didn't stop to sort out what exactly it is your theory is claiming to explain and how it explains it.
I certainly will not assume anything about it by defining it. I will do experiments to study it. Meanwhile, I can call it Sample #32456/31 for bookkeeping purposes. See above for extension of the point.
Yeah, but how do you study consciousness without knowing what it is? What's your experiment going to be? Put a scale in a room and ask people to think to see if it has a weight?
Find yourself a neuroscientist or a psychologist and ask them how they study and define consciousness. It's not as simple as "eh, we just use the word and do tests." It is a philosophical problem, and....that's something you could start learning about with Searle et al on the chinese brain argument.
Produce something useful and you will gain my interest. Until then, you are just a wanker who expects society to pay for a lifetime of his intellectual masturbations and attacks anyone who calls him on it as ignorant of the very same. Blunt but true.
Well, if you don't have any familiarity with the material, how do you know there's nothing useful there?
You want to study logic? Be a mathematician. You want to know how the universe works on a fundamental level? Be a physicist. You want to know about materials and compounds? Be a chemist? You want to dwell into what life is? Be a biologist. Playing games with empty concepts and definitions while ignoring common sense, probability, and empirical evidence is simply silly.
Want to know something about the value of philosophy? Stop making yourself look silly with all these wild assertions about what it is and isn't and pick up a book. I recommend
1000 years of philosophy by Romano Harre; it's a good book for beginners.
They are not just claims. It is the historical truth.
Oh yes, is this the same "truth" of philosophy being ethics, not doing logic, and of there being an "objective reality" outside of your mind that you can test without ever having gotten outside of your mind to begin with?
I'm really having a hard time telling the difference between your claims and your truth. It looks to me like the rule for truth in your world is "If CAnnoneer claims it, it must be true." Cute, quaint...but rational?
