/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15141697
>The burden is on you to prove I am just your mental projection
Such a thing can't be 'proved'. The problem of other minds is intractable no matter if you are a materialist or an idealist or a dualist.
> If you were mentally projecting everyone else, you could tell me what brand of computer I am using
You misunderstand what idealism is. It doesn't imply that everything is one person's mind. It implies that everything is essentially of a mental nature. Your experience and my experience and every other humans ever was experienced as a mental experience. That's a fact. It doesn't imply that I would have omniscience.
>you can't actually validate your own consciousness with the primary axiom of your system being that it was suppose to be the only thing you can validate
I don't have to validate my consciousness to myself. If I wasn't conscious I wouldn't even be able to consider the matter in the first place. It's self evident.
>Consistent correct usage is the demonstration of understanding
No, it is not.
See pic from the actual paper. The guy doesn't understand chinese. He has the instructions (program) which are written in english. The chinese characters are just forms which to him have no meaning either as input nor is and understanding of meaning gained as he outputs them. He is able to output the right answer based on his understanding of the operation to be conducted which is expressed in english.
>Now suppose further that after this first batch of Chinese writing I am given a second batch of Chinese script together with a set of rules for correlating the second batch with the first batch. The rules are in English, and I understand these rules as well as any other native speaker of English. They enable me to correlate one set of formal symbols with another set of formal symbols, and all that 'formal' means here is that I can identify the symbols entirely by their shapes.
ect