The Instigator
FuzzyCatPotato
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
blackkid
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

This Debate Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/15/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,771 times Debate No: 60165
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (37)
Votes (1)

 

FuzzyCatPotato

Con

This Debate Exists

---

Definitions

This: "used to indicate a specific ... thing ... being indicated", [1].
Debate: "a ... discussion on a particular topic ... in which opposing arguments are put forward", [2].
Exist: "to have objective reality or being", [3].

---

BOP

Full BOP rests on Pro.

---

Assumptions

No unproven assumptions will be accepted.

---

Rounds

First round is NOT acceptance. In Round 5, Pro must write only "No round as agreed."

---

Rules:

Breaking any rule is grounds for a full 7-point forfeit.

---

References:
[1] http://google.com...
[2] http://google.com...
[3] http://google.com...
blackkid

Pro

Using the completed definitions of the concepts above:

This: "used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being indicated or experienced."
Debate: "a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward."
Exists: "have objective reality or being."

Considering the nature of the proposition itself the debate exists just through sheer concept alone. The push into "Reality" if one wants to posit as such, regardless of one's beliefs on the nature of reality, is that it's being experienced / indicated, it is theoretically pushed as an opposing set of arguments, and must be objective in order to be pressed as an issue in and of itself.

Looking at the nature of the message it does not fit under any other definition such as an "Explanation"[1] or "Discussion" when monitoring logical presentations and data analysis.

To conclude if there was a debate challenge and I was able to accept (regardless of your take on how real I am) then the debate itself which was accepted must exist else I couldn't type this as well as an objective presence of the aftermath of the acceptance which is the marring of this website with a round 1 from "Pro" on the matter.

[1]http://philosophy.lander.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

Thanks, Pro.

---

Reminder: No unproven assumptions will be accepted.

---

ARGUMENT 1: EXPERIENCE

Pro states, "Considering the nature of the proposition itself the debate exists just through sheer concept alone. The push into "Reality" if one wants to posit as such, regardless of one's beliefs on the nature of reality, is that it's being experienced / indicated, it is theoretically pushed as an opposing set of arguments, and must be objective in order to be pressed as an issue in and of itself. Looking at the nature of the message it does not fit under any other definition such as an 'Explanation' or 'Discussion' when monitoring logical presentations and data analysis. To conclude if there was a debate challenge and I was able to accept (regardless of your take on how real I am) then the debate itself which was accepted must exist else I couldn't type this as well as an objective presence of the aftermath of the acceptance which is the marring of this website with a round 1 from 'Pro' on the matter."

Pro's (rather verbose) argument basically goes:
P1: What is experienced exists.
P2: Pro has experienced something.
P3: The thing Pro has experienced is a debate.
C1: Pro has experienced a debate.
C2: A debate exists.

**PROBLEMS**

P1 is an unproven assumption. Why must what is experienced exist? As a counterexample, it is entirely possible that "reality" is an illusion set up by robotic overlords (1) or a hallucination caused by dehydration (2) or a "strategy" video game (3). If *any* of these are possible, what we experience does not necessarily exist, or exist in the way that we experience it. Pro must prove that what is experienced exists.

P1 also assumes that it is possible to experience something. This is an unproven assumption. It's possible that nothing exists, making it possible for anything to experience anything. Pro must prove that it is possible to experience something.

P2 assumes that Pro exists and can experience things. Both of these are unproven assumptions. It's possible that "Pro" is merely a hallucination and neither exists or can experience things. Pro must prove that Pro exists and can exerience things.

P3 assumes that Pro exists, can experience things, and can experience things accurately. As noted, the first and second statements are unproven assumptions. The third is also an unproven assumption. Assuming that Pro exists and can experience things, it's possible that Pro is hallucinating, is dreaming, is being lied to, has bad external sensors, or never learned to sense anything. Pro must prove that what Pro experiences is accurate.

P3 also assumes that it's possible to differentiate experiences. Assuming that it's possible to experience things, it's possible that it is impossible to tell the difference between experiences, such as a friendly agreement and a heated debate.

**SUMMARY**

Pro's argument from experience uses unproven assumptions at every point, making it invalid as proof of the existence of this debate.

---

References

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...(video_game)
blackkid

Pro

[ Pro's (rather verbose) argument basically goes:
P1: What is experienced exists.
P2: Pro has experienced something.
P3: The thing Pro has experienced is a debate.
C1: Pro has experienced a debate.
C2: A debate exists. ]

P1 is false. The statement is "What you experience exists to you."
P2 is false. The statement is "Con has experienced something."
P3 is false. The statement is "Con has experienced participation in the activation of the activity formally known as a 'debate'."
C1 is false. The statement is "Con is experiencing participation in the activity formally known as a debate by starting one."
C2 is unnecessary.

The presumption actually lies in Solipsism, that is that Con is the only one that exist, and that Con's existence is all that matters in relation to the validation of the events. Whether Pro is an extension of Con, a separate entity from Con, or a continuation of Con does not matter therefore Pro's experience does not matter and only Con's does. So long as Con is able to participate in what is definitively a debate Con meets all the criteria (experience, classification, and validation) making the debate have to exist for Con.
Debate Round No. 2
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

Thanks, Pro.

---

Pro states, "P1 is false. The statement is 'What you experience exists to you'."

To win, Pro must prove that this debate objectively exists, because the resolution makes an objective rather than subjective statement. If something merely "exists to you", then its existence is subjective and doesn't fulfill the objective resolution.

Pro later attempts to argue that only Con exists, meaning that what Con believes is objective. This is untrue; this would merely mean that Con's beliefs are the only existing beliefs, but they are still subjective beliefs.

Furthermore, Pro hasn't proven either of the two major assumptions of P1. First, Pro needs to prove that it is possible for one entity to "experience" another. Second, Pro needs to prove that "What you experience exists to you".

---

Pro states, "P2 is false. The statement is 'Con has experienced something'."

Changing "Pro" to "Con" doesn't prove either of the two major assumptions of P2. First, Pro must prove that Con exists. Pro attempts this later, when Pro argues for Solipsism, but does not succeed. Second, Pro must prove that Con *can* exerience something.

---

Pro states, "P3 is false. The statement is 'Con has experienced participation in the activation of the activity formally known as a "debate" '."

Changing "Pro" to "Con" and using more and longer words doesn't prove either of the four major assumption of P3. First, Pro must prove that Con exists. Second, Pro must prove that Con *can* experience something. Third, Pro must prove that Con's experiences are accurate. Fourth, Pro must prove that Con can differentiate these accurate experiences.

Furthermore, this change from "Pro" to "Con" forces Pro to prove what Con believes. As Con, I strenuously deny that I am experiencing a debate. Prove me wrong!

---

Pro states, "C1 is false. The statement is 'Con is experiencing participation in the activation of the activity formally known as a debate by starting one'."

Sorry, I'll use more and longer words next time I try to put your arguments into a logical syllogism.

---

Pro states, "C2 is unnecessary."

Unfortunately for Pro, it is not. Without C2, if *every* other premise is valid, all Pro has proven is that "Con is experiencing a debate". To win, Pro has to prove that "This debate exists." C2 was the necessary junction between the two concepts.

Furthermore C2, using the new P1, would read "A debate exists to Con". As I pointed out against P1, Pro's new logical proof cannot win this debate whatsoever.

---

Pro attempts to argue both that (a) only Con exists, in a weird not-proving-self-existence form of Solipsism, and (b) Con is engaging in a debate, even if Pro doesn't exist.

Pro offers no arguments in support of (a). Pro must both prove that (i) Con exists and (ii) nothing else exists for this to be true. As Con, I strenuously deny that I exist.

Pro argues that an exchange of viewpoints is enough for a debate to exist. I accept this. However, Pro must prove that Con exists before Pro can prove that Con is debating with Conself.

---

Summary:

None of Pro's unproven assumptions have been proven, and one has been added. As such, Pro's logical proof is flawed and cannot succeed.

Furthermore, Pro's logical proof, even if it succeeds, now only proves subjective existence, not objective, and falls short of winning the debate.
blackkid

Pro

[ Pro states, "P1 is false. The statement is 'What you experience exists to you'."

To win, Pro must prove that this debate objectively exists, because the resolution makes an objective rather than subjective statement. If something merely "exists to you", then its existence is subjective and doesn't fulfill the objective resolution.

Pro later attempts to argue that only Con exists, meaning that what Con believes is objective. This is untrue; this would merely mean that Con's beliefs are the only existing beliefs, but they are still subjective beliefs.

Furthermore, Pro hasn't proven either of the two major assumptions of P1. First, Pro needs to prove that it is possible for one entity to "experience" another. Second, Pro needs to prove that "What you experience exists to you". ]

----

The presumption is that if something "exists to you" then it is subjective however this is not the case. The provision that something exists and is tangible is always taken from the onlooker's prospective (http://www.britannica.com...) therefore it is imperative that the two be interconnected as a proof.

Pro does not state that Con only exists only that the only person who has to perceive is Con. Con's existence and observation are sufficient as evidence regardless of the existence of others or their perceptions.

The citation of Empiricism providence evidence / proof of both through axiom. Provision beyond that is unreasonable as if Pro suggests that one must prove an axiom then there is no value to the argument.

---

[ Pro states, "P2 is false. The statement is 'Con has experienced something'."

Changing "Pro" to "Con" doesn't prove either of the two major assumptions of P2. First, Pro must prove that Con exists. Pro attempts this later, when Pro argues for Solipsism, but does not succeed. Second, Pro must prove that Con *can* exerience something. ]

Changing to Con provides as Con is typing and participating. While Pro cannot prove that Pro exists to Con there is no value to Con denying Con exists therefore no value to denying that Con is indeed participating as per Con's arguments. The values are markedly different. Pro does not argue "for" Solipsism but uses Solipsism as a means of provision for "Self" which proves that Con exists and is participating therefore lending credence, even if Con should argue that Pro does not exist, that the debate is still underway even if only with an extension of Con-self. Con proves through redundancy that Con can experience as Con participates unless Con is denying their participation and existence.

---

[First, Pro must prove that Con exists.]

Redundancy. Con exists by providing that Con must be proven to exist. (http://www.britannica.com...)

---

[Second, Pro must prove that Con *can* experience something.]

Same redundancy.

[Third, Pro must prove that Con's experiences are accurate.]

Con's experience do not have to be accurate. If Con exists and is experiencing participation then Con is indeed holding a debate with another party or an extension of themselves. The validity of the other unit is unimportant as all that matters is the participation itself and the contradictory nature of the participants in an effort to build arguments (definitively, a debate).

[Fourth, Pro must prove that Con can differentiate these accurate experiences.]

Con's perception beyond participation and existence has no effect on the definitive nature of what is. Con's ability to differentiate is null/doesn't matter. You can be dreaming or awake.

[Furthermore, this change from "Pro" to "Con" forces Pro to prove what Con believes. As Con, I strenuously deny that I am experiencing a debate. Prove me wrong!]

Con's perceptions beyond participation and existence again has no effective on the definitive nature of what is. Con's denial of their own existence, experience, participation, or the nature of that participation does not validate Con's position or beliefs as per Empiricism or Solipsism.

( If you need me to use simpler sentences just say so. )
Debate Round No. 3
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

**ON P1:**

Pro states, "The presumption is that if something "exists to you" then it is subjective however this is not the case. The provision that something exists and is tangible is always taken from the onlooker's prospective (sic) therefore it is imperative that the two be interconnected as a proof."
Pro asserts that Empiricism (the belief that experience is the source of all knowledge (1)) is true.
First, Pro has provided no reason why Empiricism must be true, making Empiricism another unproven assumption. (Or at least no reason that doesn't rely on Empiricism itself, which would be begging the question (2)). For example, Pro has provided no reason why we should prefer Empiricism over Skepticism (3).
Second, even if Pro DOES prove that Empiricism is true, the fact that experience forms the basis of knowledge doesn't prove that what is experienced is objective. (Objective, here, means "necessarily true"; subjective merely means that "Yes, you are experiencing something, but it's not necessarily true".) It's possible both that experience is the basis of all knowledge AND that experience is wrong. Consider a schizophrenic such as mathematician John Nash (4), who believed for decades that he was working for a top-secret USA decoding program, when this was untrue. How can we tell if *we* aren't the ones hallucinating? And if Pro cannot prove that what is experienced is objective, Pro loses.

Pro states, "Pro does not state that Con only exists only that the only person who has to perceive is Con."
Pro stated, "The presumption actually lies in Solipsism, that is that Con is the only one that exist, and that Con's existence is all that matters in relation to the validation of the events."

Pro states, "Con's existence and observation are sufficient as evidence regardless of the existence of others or their perceptions."
First, Pro must prove that Con exists. Second, Pro again makes the jump from subjectivity to objectivity when none is warranted.

Pro states, "The citation of Empiricism providence evidence / proof of both through axiom. Provision beyond that is unreasonable as if Pro suggests that one must prove an axiom then there is no value to the argument."
Pro asserts that questioning Empiricism makes the debate meaningless. First, this is untrue. Debate over the correct metaphysical system, if any, is not meaningless. Second, this is Pro's fault, not Con's. In the rules, Con clearly stated, "No unproven assumptions will be acceted." Pro agreed to abide by these rules by accepting; Pro must take the blame if Pro does not follow them.

---

**ON P2**

Pro states, "Changing to Con provides as Con is typing and participating. While Pro cannot prove that Pro exists to Con there is no value to Con denying Con exists therefore no value to denying that Con is indeed participating as per Con's arguments. The values are markedly different. Pro does not argue "for" Solipsism but uses Solipsism as a means of provision for "Self" which proves that Con exists and is participating therefore lending credence, even if Con should argue that Pro does not exist, that the debate is still underway even if only with an extension of Con-self. Con proves through redundancy that Con can experience as Con participates unless Con is denying their participation and existence. Con exists by providing that Con must be proven to exist," and cites the "cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am) argument.

Pro's assertion makes two unproven assumptions. First, that Con thinks. Second, that the cogito ergo sum argument is valid.

First, why is it necessary that Con actually "thinks"? As a possible counterexample, everything Con has ever "written" is actually just the product of a random-letter-generating computer code that so far has happened to form cogent arguments. To argue otherwise would be an argument from probability (5) and fallacious.

Second, "Cogito ergo sum" is not a valid logical syllogism.
P1: I think
C1: I am
In order to reach the conclusion, a second premise must be added.
P1: I think
P2: An entity must exist in order to think
C1: I am
Why must P2 be true? Why can't a non-existent entity think?
Further, why must *I* exist? How can one prove that it is oneself doing the thinking, rather than someone else?
Regardless, this argument still hinges on proving that Con thinks.

---

**ON P3**

Pro states, "Con's experience do not have to be accurate. If Con exists and is experiencing participation then Con is indeed holding a debate with another party or an extension of themselves. The validity of the other unit is unimportant as all that matters is the participation itself and the contradictory nature of the participants in an effort to build arguments (definitively, a debate). Con's perception beyond participation and existence has no effect on the definitive nature of what is. Con's ability to differentiate is null/doesn't matter. You can be dreaming or awake."
Let's imagine that Con can't tell the difference between worshipping the voices in Con's head and debating with them. If Con believes that Con isn't having a debate (cannot differentiate/acctuately describe) what is going on, then it cannot be said that Con is actually exchanging views. Rather, Con is worshipping the voices in Con's head by disagreeing with them.

Pro states, "Con's perceptions beyond participation and existence again has no effective on the definitive nature of what is. Con's denial of their own existence, experience, participation, or the nature of that participation does not validate Con's position or beliefs as per Empiricism or Solipsism."
Pro holds two things to be true:
1. If Con believes that Con is in a debate, then Con is in a debate.
2: If Con believes that Con does not exist, then Con is wrong.
Holding both of these two beliefs is a contradiction. Why? Pro's argument behind 1 is that "What you experience exists to you" and that Con is experiencing a debate; ergo, the debate exists (because Empiricism). If, however, as is true, Con is experiencing the fact that Con doesn't exist, then according to Pro's logic Con doesn't exist (because Empiricism).

---

**ON C2**

Pro concedes that C2 is necessary by not arguing against Con's argument.

---

Pro states, "If you need me to use simpler sentences just say so."

Using extra words or higher-difficulty words always annoys me, first because often people mask stupidity with "fancy" writing, and second because it wastes reader's time. Neither is necessarily true here, but I still hate long words. :P

---

**SUMMARY**

Major issues: Pro has yet to prove that (a) experience of reality is accurate, (b) that Con exists, or (c) what Con experiences is objective.

---

References:

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org....
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org...

---

Reminder:

Round 4 is the last round in which Pro can make arguments, because Pro cannot make arguments in Round 5. I look forward to reading your final round, Pro.
blackkid

Pro

As this is my last entry even though there is much to be delved into I will pose things as statements instead of proposals for thought.

[" First, Pro has provided no reason why Empiricism must be true, making Empiricism another unproven assumption. (Or at least no reason that doesn't rely on Empiricism itself, which would be begging the question (2)). For example, Pro has provided no reason why we should prefer Empiricism over Skepticism (3). "]

Skepticism says one thing that completely undermines the value of this inquiry, "Most philosophies have weaknesses and can be criticized and this is a general principle of progression in philosophy.[24] The philosophy of skepticism asserts that no truth is knowable[25] or only probable.[26] Some say the scientific method also asserts probable findings, because the number of cases tested is always limited and they constitute perceptual observations.[27] Another criticism is the proposition that "no truth is knowable" is knowably true is contradictory.[28] The here is one hand argument is also another relatively simple criticism that reverses the skeptic's proposals and supports common sense." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) as well as the segment "Philosophical Skepticism versus Ordinary Incredulity" (http://plato.stanford.edu...) which both express a problem:

You can't hold this conversation. If Philosophical Skepticism is asserted the definitions set forth at the beginning of this are wasteful because to define something is to acknowledge it's existence and to acknowledge something's existence requires you don't deny it via Skepticism. It simply does not work because to doubt that existence exists (the concept in question) is redundant and circular. Pro asserts Empiricism on the grounds of the definitions provided and backs it with the assertion that existence at least exists and "this" refers to a sensory function as there is no way to define something humans cannot conceive of and the nature of the object (debates) refer to an action which makes it tangible.

" Second, even if Pro DOES prove that Empiricism is true, the fact that experience forms the basis of knowledge doesn't prove that what is experienced is objective. (Objective, here, means "necessarily true"; subjective merely means that "Yes, you are experiencing something, but it's not necessarily true".) It's possible both that experience is the basis of all knowledge AND that experience is wrong. Consider a schizophrenic such as mathematician John Nash (4), who believed for decades that he was working for a top-secret USA decoding program, when this was untrue. How can we tell if *we* aren't the ones hallucinating? And if Pro cannot prove that what is experienced is objective, Pro loses. "

To answer this simply use the prospect of "Reasonable Doubt" (http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca...) [alt. source: Cartesian Doubt: http://en.wikipedia.org...] which doesn't support the position that has failed under Empiricism or Solipsism, whichever is asserted, relative to the self. Objectivity of participation is guaranteed as unless Con asserts that they are not actually here or real or participating there's no case.

" First, Pro must prove that Con exists. Second, Pro again makes the jump from subjectivity to objectivity when none is warranted. "

Con's existence is self-evident as per Con's own proposition. In order to even hold the debate as per defined in concept Con must exist. Con cannot define existence without existing, Con cannot define the object (debate) without knowledge of what it is (meaning Con has knowledge which in turn proposes that Con exists through Reasonable Doubt), and Con cannot perceive ("this") without evidence of ability to perceive which lies intrinsically in the aspects of existence itself. Con has essentially proven they exist objectively. To that end the above premises stand.

"Pro asserts that questioning Empiricism makes the debate meaningless."

Pro asserts that questioning the axiomatic proposition makes the debate meaningless, which did occur, as per Philosophical Skepticism. "We cannot know" undermines the value of the point which inherently makes the question self-evident and axiomatic unto itself and therefore no longer a question and impossible to debate.

" First, this is untrue. Debate over the correct metaphysical system, if any, is not meaningless. Second, this is Pro's fault, not Con's. In the rules, Con clearly stated, "No unproven assumptions will be acceted." Pro agreed to abide by these rules by accepting; Pro must take the blame if Pro does not follow them."

The following falls under the above. If the demand for proof ( http://plato.stanford.edu..., http://plato.stanford.edu...) exceeds rational limitations of logic it is no longer a debate, a discussion, or even an assertion but it must be self-evident and in turn this creates a paradox for this entire exchange rendering it both true and false.

" Pro's assertion makes two unproven assumptions. First, that Con thinks. Second, that the cogito ergo sum argument is valid. "

As before Con's perception, deduction, and assertion by definition demands that Con is able to render thoughts therefore is able to understand concepts therefore is a thinking being. Cogito ergo sum, as cited, is not used to presume Con's existence but merely that Con is self-aware and thus "here".

" First, why is it necessary that Con actually "thinks"? As a possible counterexample, everything Con has ever "written" is actually just the product of a random-letter-generating computer code that so far has happened to form cogent arguments. To argue otherwise would be an argument from probability (5) and fallacious. "

Re-asserting reasonable doubt. It is functionally safe to assume it is impossible for a randomly generated set of characters to form cogent counters to a position. It's "far reaching" [ Far-Fetched Hypothesis
This is the fallacy of offering a bizarre (far-fetched) hypothesis as the correct explanation without first ruling out more mundane explanations. (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) ] and not worth considering.

Cogito ergo sum (http://plato.stanford.edu...) is far more complex. To summarize in context the proposition that you do think is solidified by your ability to question (and therefore think about) your ability to think. The entirety of the arguments proposed are weakened by the constant inability to put forth more than questions that only reassess and reassert self-awareness and "self" in general. So long as Con perceives this, is able to think (whether or not the thoughts are their own), and is actively participating Con is actively here and thus it exists. Con is proving this more and more correct.

" 1. If Con believes that Con is in a debate, then Con is in a debate.
2: If Con believes that Con does not exist, then Con is wrong. "

#1 is actually "If Con is participating regardless of what Con believes then Con is in a debate."

Cited thrice in Pro's argument:

[Con's experience do not have to be accurate. If Con exists and is experiencing participation then Con is indeed holding a debate with another party or an extension of themselves.]

[Con's perception beyond participation and existence has no effect on the definitive nature of what is.]

[Con's perceptions beyond participation and existence again has no effective on the definitive nature of what is.]

#2: That is correct. If Con has the ability to believe or disbelieve then Con exists by extension through the ability to produce self-awareness, conceptualize existence, and then actively deny existence. Con proves Con exists beyond Reasonable Doubt by actively asserting that Con does not exist.

---

C2 is redundant. It falls under the same logic seen above where the redundancy of the nature of the asserted is proof unto itself. Pro doesn't concede, pro chooses to conserve energy.

---

Well that's it! I wish it were longer but it is what it is. There's so much more to explore, but it was fun while it lasted, thanks! :D
Debate Round No. 4
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

Thanks, Con.

---

Please Tie This Debate:

Unfortunately, I'm busy preparing for the recently released Lincoln-Douglass debate topic (1). As such, I will not present a rebuttal this round.

That said, my opponent and I have agreed to tie this debate (2). I enjoyed it, and would love a more direct debate over phil skep later. =)

---

References:

(1) http://speechanddebate.org...
(2) http://debate.org...
blackkid

Pro

Good luck in your debate!
Debate Round No. 5
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by blackkid 3 years ago
blackkid
They are intangible. What I see on the screen does exist, how I decipher what is on the screen is something else, but I get what you mean anyway. Thoughts however differ because they do not have this interface problem (a deciphering or codekey) and instead function as a separate and ill-understood system of events in the brain and in human experience.

Sentience is very complex because it is self-asserting, nothing we've created has that power, and while we create machines that are far more capable in processing than our brain the basic I/O systems do not compare to the brain's seemingly mysterious ability to just ... make things up.

For instance a computer would never make the analogy you just did between the brain and the pixels because logically there's no reason to ever do so. What is deciphered has nothing to do with what is spawned, etc.

Why aren't we actually in the debate?
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
You assume thoughts "exist" in some nontangible sense. Why is this? What you're seeing on your screen doesn't "exist" in a full sense -- it is merely the configuration of many different pixels. Why is a thought any different than a computer screen in this sense, in that it is merely the compilation of many logic gates?
Posted by blackkid 3 years ago
blackkid
Well if that's the case then "thoughts" don't exist. All brain activity has the same problem. That's why you can say this across dreams, illusions, delusions, and perceptions in general. None of them are actually tangible but all of them undoubtedly exist. The entire basis of the world we live in philosophically and how we discover it is based on this.

Empiricism, and in turn Scientific Method, do not prove that they themselves work but instead rely on the idea that our senses and sensors do. I guess if you wanted to reduce to the point where you are bartering existence itself as a "tangible" thing and equating it to reality then it's questionable whether conceptual propositions have any place in the universe as we know it, if we know it at all. :p
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
For the hallucination example, the events depicted in the hallucination neither exist nor are tangible, but the cause of the hallucination (drugs, brain damage) both exists and is tangible in the physical molecules of the drugs or the physical deformity of the cells.

Dreams are similar.
Posted by blackkid 3 years ago
blackkid
Just think of that one time you saw a square that looked 3D on a sheet of paper. That's exactly the same thing; the square is a total illusion, it's not "real", but it is interpreted (experienced) as real and recognized. All optical illusions and really any illusions or delusions work this way.
Posted by blackkid 3 years ago
blackkid
Well, no. For instance hallucinations do exist. They aren't real (tangible) but they do exist ( are experienced). The same could be said of dreams (relating to content) versus conscious events.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
To exist IS to be real. It's the definition of existence.
Posted by blackkid 3 years ago
blackkid
Experience isn't proof of reality but proof of existence doesn't lie in reality. That's your problem. Remember it's "Prove this debate exists." not "Prove this debate is Real." I thought you knew this, thus why it's brain teaser. :p
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
The only confusion here is the belief that experience is proof of reality.
Posted by blackkid 3 years ago
blackkid
,_, I think I confused my opponent. I feel bad.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
FuzzyCatPotatoblackkidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: agreed tie. Not that I'd be able to spot a winner from the previous rounds anyways, with all the complex syllogisms.