Thread by @Saintonge235

@robkhenderson .Evolution does something? How can it, unless objective reality exists?

And the "computer simulation" is bullshit. One computer "organism" can see "objective reality" but can't recognize danger, but another can see "danger" but not the computerized "reality"?

@robkhenderson Within the context of the simulation, recognizing "this will kill me" is recognizing "reality."

This is another example of people proving 2+2 can equal five, by substituting other numbers for 2. It's just dishonest.

Then there's the perception nonsense.

@robkhenderson ‘In like manner, we create an apple when we look, and destroy it when we look away. Something exists when we don’t look, but it isn’t an apple, and is probably nothing like an apple,’ Hoffman writes.”

No, we see an apple. This is just being systematically dishonest.

@robkhenderson No, we do not have a ‘God’s eye’ view that tells us where every particle in the atom is, and it’s quantum state. So what? What use would that be, assuming it was possible in the first place?

@robkhenderson Hoffman is pulling an old sophist’s trick. You have to use your brain and sense organs to perceive the world, claim that you are perceiving your sense organs, rather than reality. It's like claiming that when you use a hammer to drive a nail, you aren't actually driving the nail.

@robkhenderson Next, claim that the sense organs are fallible, and therefore don’t perceive reality, without explaining how you can tell they are fallible if you can’t perceive reality.

This is screwier than the behaviorist contention that minds and ideas don't exist.

@robkhenderson “consciousness may even exist beyond the organic world, all the way down to electrons and protons.” Electrons and protons can only have consciousness if they exist. It is irritating to have to point this out.

@robkhenderson “I’m saying let’s go all the way: It’s consciousness, and only consciousness, all the way down.” Consciousness is not conscious of anything, because nothing exists to be conscious of. Yet somehow, in this illusory, "natural" selection operated, even though nature does not exist.

@robkhenderson If you're allowed to introduce contradiction into a logical system, you can "prove" anything. So Hoffman can argue that a car doesn't exist when he looks away from it. But if he steps in front of it when it is moving, he'll soon be disabused of that nonsense.

@robkhenderson @threadreaderapp unroll please