11th March 2005, 9:18 PM
Absolute proof is an impossibility, but proof ENOUGH is easily possible. The question is the standard you use. Experience is relative, but what is and isn't logical is not. I mean, a logical method of thinking. The only standard that has provided real answers is the scientific method.
Allow me to provide something for you. Observe your own behavior relative to others around you. You may notice that you are no more complex than any other human being. By observing that other person, you show they exist. The idea that it is all a dream state is nice, but there is no evidence at all to show that. In order to prove that, you can't just come UP with an explanation. Just coming up with an explanation that doesn't contradict what you see is NOT evidence. This is something a lot of people don't seem to get. Evidence is actually having some sort of observable PROOF that can ONLY be explained by your explanation.
For example, coming up with a theory of gravity where unicorns are involved is all well and good, but the only way to prove it is to observe something that can ONLY be explained by that theory. Have you ever seen anything about this world that can ONLY be explained by a "god dream" theory? If you do, then you have proof. Until then, there is no evidence for that. If you have no evidence, then according to the scientific method, you can't believe in it. You can believe in it as a matter of faith, but not as a matter of fact.
What is a fact? Well, according to most skeptics, a fact is any theory or idea that has such a volume of evidence that it becomes reasonable to offer temporary agreement.
What is the volume of evidence that shows all humans are unique individuals? Well, they all behave the same as you might in a given circumstance. That about sums ALL of it up really. With that in mind, the simplest explanation, the one with the lowest number of elements needed to explain it, is that all humans really are alike and thus have their own personalities. A more complicated one that doesn't contradict the findings is that a single human somewhere is generating this all as a dream, but one, that is more complicated. That suggest that one person actually has a super powerful brain that manages to create a lot of human personalities, and at the same time is so strained that what is left is exactly as capable as the personalities it created. As I stated above, there is no evidence to support this.
But more than that, I must add that I can't humor this idea at all, namely because I am self aware myself. They always demand I offer some evidence that I am self aware and not a doll, but I really don't need to. They are the one making the claim, and I already have all the evidence I need to the contrary. The one making the outragious claim is the one with the burden of proof.
There, does that make it clear to you? This is all from a scientific perspective mind you, one I really enjoy. Now, a perspective of faith is totally illogical. I do use faith a lot, a lot, myself because, well, sometimes I just don't need, or want, proof. I never will claim anything I have faith in without proof is a fact though.
Allow me to provide something for you. Observe your own behavior relative to others around you. You may notice that you are no more complex than any other human being. By observing that other person, you show they exist. The idea that it is all a dream state is nice, but there is no evidence at all to show that. In order to prove that, you can't just come UP with an explanation. Just coming up with an explanation that doesn't contradict what you see is NOT evidence. This is something a lot of people don't seem to get. Evidence is actually having some sort of observable PROOF that can ONLY be explained by your explanation.
For example, coming up with a theory of gravity where unicorns are involved is all well and good, but the only way to prove it is to observe something that can ONLY be explained by that theory. Have you ever seen anything about this world that can ONLY be explained by a "god dream" theory? If you do, then you have proof. Until then, there is no evidence for that. If you have no evidence, then according to the scientific method, you can't believe in it. You can believe in it as a matter of faith, but not as a matter of fact.
What is a fact? Well, according to most skeptics, a fact is any theory or idea that has such a volume of evidence that it becomes reasonable to offer temporary agreement.
What is the volume of evidence that shows all humans are unique individuals? Well, they all behave the same as you might in a given circumstance. That about sums ALL of it up really. With that in mind, the simplest explanation, the one with the lowest number of elements needed to explain it, is that all humans really are alike and thus have their own personalities. A more complicated one that doesn't contradict the findings is that a single human somewhere is generating this all as a dream, but one, that is more complicated. That suggest that one person actually has a super powerful brain that manages to create a lot of human personalities, and at the same time is so strained that what is left is exactly as capable as the personalities it created. As I stated above, there is no evidence to support this.
But more than that, I must add that I can't humor this idea at all, namely because I am self aware myself. They always demand I offer some evidence that I am self aware and not a doll, but I really don't need to. They are the one making the claim, and I already have all the evidence I need to the contrary. The one making the outragious claim is the one with the burden of proof.
There, does that make it clear to you? This is all from a scientific perspective mind you, one I really enjoy. Now, a perspective of faith is totally illogical. I do use faith a lot, a lot, myself because, well, sometimes I just don't need, or want, proof. I never will claim anything I have faith in without proof is a fact though.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)