Imagine it a bit like a Jehovah witness coming to the door, to sell faith. Though what faith undermines their own sell?
Or worse, imagine a philosopher coming to your clean door step?
But this is the very important thing about this idea – it involves the notion there is a black box you just can’t look into. Nor me. Unfortunately the extra part of it is that you being unable to see into the black box is also hidden – with an actual black box, you could hold it and see how it blocks you from seeing inside. But imagine some fool comes up and says you can’t see into a black box and that he can’t even show you the box. Maybe you ask why can’t he show it? And he says that’s part of it – you can’t see into the box and you can’t even see that there is a box. That’s how black it is!!
What tremendous rubbish! At least the Jehovah witnesses hand you a pamphlet with people frolicking in fields and sitting with lambs and stuff. That at least looks fun!
This guy goes on, because somehow the very forces of this example exclude slamming the door, and says there’s a lot of behavior that comes from the box – it has attachments for wires on the outside, and those wires send shocks of electricity about the place. From these behaviors a number of hypotheses can be formed about what is in the box – pretty good hypotheses as well, since in other material objects they’d prove right. But then again most people would still look at the very material object those hypotheses are about to confirm them. Say you saw water running down a channel into a container – you hypothesize there is water in the container. But you open it up to check, you don’t just have faith. Not unless you’re forced to for lack of time to open the container or some other such constraint on checking.
But this black box the fool is talking about? You can’t look in. Just can’t. Can’t even find the black box to see it as a box. I mean really! If you were forced by lack of time to not check the container from before for water, that’s one thing. That’s practical! But being told you can’t look! That’s just rubbish! That’s….that’s a demand of faith!
Thrilling build up there? What could this black box be a stand in for…ah crap, really the title kind of spoilered that, eh? What kind of weak sauce sell is this?
So the idea is that the human mind (as defined in many a way) is hollow. That hollow is the black box. Or so goes this line of faith – see, that’s the hard thing, it’d be nice to pitch this as ‘how it is, bro!’. But that contradicts the very idea.
But I’ll pitch is as if ‘that’s how it is, bro!’ anyway, for drama purposes. Hell, other people get pamphlets with lambs and frolicking – I get this!
What’s in your mind, while there can be many points of evidence about human behavior that suggest what is in that brain that is you, you cannot confirm any of those suggestions at all. Basically as simple as that. You lack inner access. Indeed, you lack the inner access to realise you lack the inner access.
No, it’s not a radical skepticism. Though in the skittering absence of self access, why not slip that way? But that’s the thing about this idea being a faith – when pitched as a fact, what would a being with a lack of inner access do in regards to that ‘fact’? They would not be able to confirm it because they don’t have inner access nor inner access that shows they don’t have inner access. The ‘fact’ would have to be rejected for sheer, absolute lack of evidence (most certainly it is a fact there is no evidence. Nor evidence of there being a lack of evidence!) – how it would be rejected doesn’t matter, it would be rejected and then the how determined afterward, rolling on a D&D chart of 100 random rejections. A skittering.
But a faith? A faith is like Gandalf – no one consigns Gandalf to the chart of 100 random rejections. And sometimes other faith stuff doesn’t get sent there straight away either.
So it’s a faith pitch. You can argue what is inside the mind from material effects and behaviors shown outside the mind. But how can you confirm it? Can you open the black box – or what you have about confirming it is merely a faith?
Can you really argue what is in the mind to anyone else, given they cannot confirm the argument? Wait, whoa – I just pitched that in a fact like way, didn’t I? Ditch that – What if a totes set of fantasy beings could not confirm what is in the mind, due to lack of inner access, but other beings of that race tried to argue to others of their kind what is in all their minds – as if it were a fact?
Would none of those argued to be able to confirm the statement, for having no inner access – there would be absolutely no evidence to go by. Without evidence the argument would HAVE to be wrong – how it’s wrong would just be just a matter of time to determine. That it is wrong would be the first step. Then rolling on the D&D chart of 100 random rejections for as to why it is wrong.
Essentially all of these fantasy beings would have hollow minds – the black box, the absence of absences, inside their mind. An empty space, lurking there.
Now here’s the fun bit – imagine you pitched to these fantasy beings the idea of the hollow mind NOT as a fact, but as a fantasy idea! Well, they might not rush to the chart of 100 quite so quickly, since they can humor a tall tale or two. If only for a chuckle.
So it might be quite possible to see them, sitting there, with this fantasy of them having hollow minds, when they freakin’ have hollow minds, and able to toss around that idea quite easily. They can handle the hard fact of this examples reality when it’s pitched as a fantasy – as a potential faith. When it’s just pitched as an example. But pitch the hollow mind as a fact to the hollow minded and [joker]everybody loses their minds![/joker]
What a freakin’ setting, huh? Well, maybe for philosophical readers – where the hell’s the action and adventure in that, eh? Blah! Needs work shopping to be really fun!
But to really indulge the philosophical and lack of action, imagine beings in the hollow mind example trying to argue others about the contents of their own minds. Imagine of another hollow being tried to say its a fact they can’t – the microphone feedback like effect of being A, who cannot confirm what is in their mind, saying to hollow being B they cannot argue to a group of hollow beings (group C) what is in their mind because group C cannot confirm it! It’d be like some kind of Rube Goldberg machine that is actually designed to fail at each stage!
Let’s go through the failures! Being B could not confirm that group C cannot confirm what is being argued is the contents of their mind. And being A could not inwardly confirm what the hell they were arguing to begin with – being B already thinks A cannot confirm this (and is actually right, but the reason for being right is not actually correct) and is hearing group C cannot confirm this from someone who cannot confirm it in themselves! Of course it can’t be right – it can’t be confirmed (by inner access)! And it’s definitely true that A cannot confirm this!
It’s kind of like a hot potato – in this example A cannot confirm what he is saying. If we go back in time before A showed up and there was just B trying to argue what is in the minds of themselves and group C, B has the hot potato because group C thinks B cannot confirm any of this. And they are right! Though again, for the wrong reason!
In such an example, the issue is there is a fallacy that confirmation is always possible. Whoever is doing the claiming of what is in the other hollow minds is always (correctly) suspected of not being able to confirm that inwardly. With that fallacy in place though, the reason for the lack of confirmation always ends up wrong – always ends up skittering across the chart of 100 random rejections. Falsely. For their minds lack inner access (and even lack inner access to that absence of inner access, like we lack access to where our sight runs out). The notion of facts, for these example beings, insists there is always a way to confirm something. Anything else is to be rejected (ala Russell’s teapot). And yet when they practice the fallacy they can always confirm (but in this example they can’t for lack of inner access), then they look for a way of rejecting and simply rationalize one, rolling on the chart of 100 rejections. Such is the strength of the fallacy.
What a wacky setting, amiright? What, wait? You hear the kettle boiling? You have to close the door now? Oh, right, well good day – I’m on to the next house on the street!
Though my mouth is dry.