|
Powdered_Toastman



Registered: 05/30/11
Posts: 5,589
|
Is it impossible to refute solipsism?
#14542750 - 05/31/11 09:11 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Since solipsism refers to only the self existing and everything else is just part of the mind, does that make it impossible to debunk? This concept seems kind of scary.
-------------------- "I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain." You are God and I am You
|
NetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
|
What is the self, and what is the mind?
Those two questions should be answered before one decides whether solipsism is even a coherent viewpoint.
|
Harri

Registered: 10/29/08
Posts: 1,452
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: NetDiver]
#14542798 - 05/31/11 09:21 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Is my mind really that powerful to create all of this? and keep it functioning to universes physical law without exceptions?
|
ToDieOnMush
Stranger


Registered: 03/12/11
Posts: 35
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
|
:O no idea it had a name..... Man me and my friend have opened so many doors.
|
NetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Harri]
#14542874 - 05/31/11 09:33 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Harri said: Is my mind really that powerful to create all of this? and keep it functioning to universes physical law without exceptions?
The solipsist would say "apparently so."
The question still stands though. What is the self, and what is the mind?
|
evildee125
Here now



Registered: 03/23/09
Posts: 3,179
Loc: fl
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
Powdered_Toastman said: Since solipsism refers to only the self existing and everything else is just part of the mind, does that make it impossible to debunk? This concept seems kind of scary.
exactll what it seemed like on a high dose of the mush
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: NetDiver]
#14542882 - 05/31/11 09:35 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
In my vast studies I've determined them to likely be emergent properties of my brain.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Rahz
Alive Again


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Icelander]
#14543629 - 06/01/11 12:07 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
It is possible that everyone exists in Icelanders brain.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Rahz]
#14544516 - 06/01/11 06:25 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
That's right, make me do all the work. .
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!



Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: NetDiver]
#14545404 - 06/01/11 11:54 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Ontological predispositions are never refutable IME.
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
|
Delicious Apes
Registered: 10/31/08
Posts: 3,642
|
|
No, of course it is completely unproveable. Anybody who says they can prove it has not humbled themselves enough to contemplate the simple origins and boundaries of their small mind.
You obviously didn't create it. But you would be making assumptions, spectacular assumptions to prove you didn't. Language, you, everybody is fucking meaningless and there are no divisions in reality. Can I be sure of that? No. How can I be sure I'm not sure? Don't get ahead of your reason. This is the reason philosophy and human construct is a joke, and you are playing the joker by giving credit to the mind, when there was never a receiver. Aphorism & skepticism.. You're a deluded fuck operating by anything else.
Edited by Delicious Apes (06/01/11 06:27 PM)
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!



Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Delicious Apes]
#14547234 - 06/01/11 06:28 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The solipsistic argument would assert that any ignorance on the part of the arguer is due to the densely ramified nature of reality as we know it.
It's obviously bull, but there is no way to disprove it.
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
|
4896744
Small Town Girl


Registered: 03/06/10
Posts: 5,128
Loc: United States
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Delicious Apes]
#14548635 - 06/01/11 11:31 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Delicious Apes said: No, of course it is completely unproveable. Anybody who says they can prove it has not humbled themselves enough to contemplate the simple origins and boundaries of their small mind.
You obviously didn't create it. But you would be making assumptions, spectacular assumptions to prove you didn't. Language, you, everybody is fucking meaningless and there are no divisions in reality. Can I be sure of that? No. How can I be sure I'm not sure? Don't get ahead of your reason. This is the reason philosophy and human construct is a joke, and you are playing the joker by giving credit to the mind, when there was never a receiver. Aphorism & skepticism.. You're a deluded fuck operating by anything else.
According to your own argument, all of what you just said is bullshit.
-------------------- Live your Life!
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: 4896744] 1
#14549612 - 06/02/11 06:28 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Right but that's how weird it all is imo. We really don't know if we know anything. Fun all around.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
4896744
Small Town Girl


Registered: 03/06/10
Posts: 5,128
Loc: United States
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Icelander]
#14550264 - 06/02/11 10:37 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I just don't buy into the "all philosophy and human reason is bullshit" bit. I can guarantee that nobody's day to day actions reflect this philosophy whether they believe it or not. I believe that humans are capable of percieving workable models in their environment.
-------------------- Live your Life!
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: 4896744]
#14550306 - 06/02/11 10:53 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I can guarantee that nobody's day to day actions reflect this philosophy whether they believe it or not.
But it sure is fun to pretend we believe it.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
|
Quote:
Powdered_Toastman said: Since solipsism refers to only the self existing and everything else is just part of the mind, does that make it impossible to debunk? This concept seems kind of scary.
As a practical matter, this is the kind of philosophical question that is not only worthless but meaningless. I think a good argument can be made that if a question has two possible answers and neither are any different in their observable consequences, that the question is meaningless because the two choices are no different and therefore there is no grounds upon which to chose, even distinguish, amongst them. Reflecting on this fact one might be tempted to regard the question, therefore, as somewhat novel, but I think that would be a mistake.
We are always creating abstract models of our world to aid in understanding and making useful predictions, but these are simply metaphors- there are any number of different abstract models that would nevertheless be indistinguishable in their consequences and faithfulness to actual observations- differing only in their ease of use. It is always this way: science and therefore all of our observations can only reveal the efficient cause of some event- never how things 'really are'. Just as we simplify the equation f(x)=3x+2-z+z as simply 3x+2 for convenience rather than any difference between the two, so too is our succesful theory just the most useful, simple, model of the world that we can imagine- having nothing neccesarily to do with the way things 'really are'.
I'm reminded of a neat quote that seems relevant to this discussion:
“It would be as useless to perceive how things 'actually look' as it would be to watch the random dots on untuned television screens” - Marvin Minsky
|
NetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: johnm214]
#14551002 - 06/02/11 01:44 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|

What you'd expect to see if solipsism were true is exactly the same as what you'd expect to see if it weren't. So both solipsism and non-solipsism are impossible to refute, rendering the question meaningless.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Solipsism can be challenged on the epistemological principle of anti-skepticism. What I mean by this is that doubt requires just as much justification as belief. If you doubt that the computer in front of you is real, I'm going to have to ask what justification you have for such doubt. The fact that it could be an illusion doesn't really make for a very convincing justification. We don't start from a position of Cartesian doubt. We start from an embodied existence in the world, with a given set of beliefs and assumptions, and we adjust those beliefs and assumptions when we find them leading to problems. When they aren't problematic, we have no reason to change them.
I actually find it interesting that both the traditions of Cartesian rationalism and Lockean empiricism led to a kind of solipsism which was ultimately resolved in both cases by pushing those ideas to their logical extreme, through phenomenology in the case of rationalism and pragmatism in the case of empiricism.
--------------------
|
Rahz
Alive Again


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Silversoul]
#14553749 - 06/03/11 12:24 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Only the self existing is an interesting idea, but nothing I've seen makes me think of it as a real possibility. Perhaps that model comes from the working of the ego. If a person isn't very self aware, they're running on the premise that everyone feels the way they think they feel, will act the way they think they will act, is who they think they are, etc. And that fantastic version of reality is in fact all inside the mind.
To what degree would that account for the average person's perception of reality? To your own?
If the past is any judge, most of what I know about reality is BS.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
Edited by Rahz (06/03/11 12:29 AM)
|
the human abstract
malaka the werewolf



Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 8,817
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Rahz]
#14553808 - 06/03/11 12:39 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
does instinct tell animals they are creating the world around them? (not including humans in this question)
if yes, then solipsism is just a part of the human condition. its a question thats answers (like someone else said) have unimportant answers, or less important than the question itself.
--------------------
★ ★★ ★
|
Ziggy-Shr00mdust
Stranger


Registered: 05/14/11
Posts: 153
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
|
|
No solipsism cannot be refuted, and anyone who says it can hasn't spent more than 5 minutes thinking about it.
Think of it this way. Your mind never directly observes anything so everything you percieve exists only in you mind anyway. Wether or not anything exists seperate from the mind is irrelevant because you'll never see it the way it exists unobserved and uninterpreted.
-------------------- He who attains his ideal by that very fact transcends it To the mind that is still, the whole universe surrenders
|
Unison
Stranger

Registered: 11/08/10
Posts: 290
Loc: Colorado
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: NetDiver]
#14555008 - 06/03/11 10:58 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Samurai Drifter said: What is the self, and what is the mind?
Those two questions should be answered before one decides whether solipsism is even a coherent viewpoint.
Maybe instead of "I think therefore I am", "think therefore am".
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
Ziggy-Shr00mdust said: Think of it this way. Your mind never directly observes anything so everything you percieve exists only in you mind anyway.
This is an assumption which doesn't fit some of the latest cognitive science. Perception does not work by image-making. Look up J.J. Gibson. Our perception is not mediated by images, but works directly by what he called "affordances," or "action potentials" in the environment. In other words, perception is a way in which we embody our environment, and we perceive that which is relevant to how we interact with that environment. There is, however, a sense in which I would agree that what we perceive exists in our mind, but that's because I would say that our mind is in the environment.
--------------------
|
vvitchdoctor
El Duderino


Registered: 05/16/11
Posts: 104
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Silversoul]
#14555317 - 06/03/11 12:03 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
everything exists simultaneously. if you doubt it, shoot your friend, then shoot yourself.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: vvitchdoctor]
#14556161 - 06/03/11 03:34 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:What I mean by this is that doubt requires just as much justification as belief. If you doubt that the computer in front of you is real, I'm going to have to ask what justification you have for such doubt. The fact that it could be an illusion doesn't really make for a very convincing justification.
So what? Why does doubt require justification. Without demonstrating this, you've made no justifiable point.
It seems you may be trying to refute that the claim bears teh burden of proof. A doubt cannot exist without a claim, either explicit or presumed, such as the presumption that the computer observed is real or not an illusion, as you suggest. To doubt this is not at all illogical, or at least you've not shown how it is.
With a presumed claim such as that your observation and conclusion as to what you've observed is correct, the doubt would be reasonable simply because a proof was not also presumed and hence there is no grounds upon which to presume the conclusion correct. Simply: youve presumed a claim but have not presumed a proof, and hence doubt of this presumed claim is reasonable because there is no known proof.
Quote:
When they aren't problematic, we have no reason to change them.
So what? The lack of a reason to correct an illogical claim does not justify the claim, however; well it may explain how it came about. That some belief is reasonable does not mean its correct.
Quote:
vvitchdoctor said: everything exists simultaneously. if you doubt it, shoot your friend, then shoot yourself.
Why? What is your point here? I don't want to shoot my friend and myself.
Edited by johnm214 (06/03/11 03:53 PM)
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: johnm214]
#14556241 - 06/03/11 03:51 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
So what? Why does doubt require justification. Without demonstrating this, you've made no justifiable point.
It seems you may be trying to refute that the claim bears teh burden of proof. A doubt cannot exist without a claim, either explicit or presumed, such as the presumption that the computer observed is real or not an illusion, as you suggest. To doubt this is not at all illogical, or at least you've not shown how it is.
With a presumed claim such as that your observation and conclusion as to what you've observed is correct, the doubt would be reasonable simply because a proof was not also presumed and hence there is no grounds upon which to presume the conclusion correct. Simply: youve presumed a claim but have not presumed a proof, and hence doubt of this presumed claim is reasonable because there is no known proof.
What we are dealing with here is not merely a claim, but experience itself. The default position is not solipsism or nihilism. It is the world as it actually appears to us. Until a reason is introduced to cause us to doubt this given world, we have every reason to accept it as it is, since doing so has always worked for us.
Those like Descartes who try to introduce doubt to this state of affairs should garner suspicion as to their sincerity. Descartes didn't really doubt the external world. He was merely pretending to do so in an exercise to try to prove a point. I doubt there are any sincere solipsists here, because our natural, everyday behavior depends on a given world. And that should be the operating assumption until evidence is presented to make us believe otherwise.
--------------------
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,466
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 5 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Silversoul]
#14556896 - 06/03/11 06:27 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I belive that is Mediation 1.
He was trying to suspend judgment about any of his beliefs which are even slightly doubtful.
Havent read that in awhile............
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Silversoul]
#14559080 - 06/04/11 07:33 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
So what? Why does doubt require justification. Without demonstrating this, you've made no justifiable point.
It seems you may be trying to refute that the claim bears teh burden of proof. A doubt cannot exist without a claim, either explicit or presumed, such as the presumption that the computer observed is real or not an illusion, as you suggest. To doubt this is not at all illogical, or at least you've not shown how it is.
With a presumed claim such as that your observation and conclusion as to what you've observed is correct, the doubt would be reasonable simply because a proof was not also presumed and hence there is no grounds upon which to presume the conclusion correct. Simply: youve presumed a claim but have not presumed a proof, and hence doubt of this presumed claim is reasonable because there is no known proof.
What we are dealing with here is not merely a claim, but experience itself.
And how do we know what 'experience itself' we are dealing with? The simple act of an observation is inseperable from some degree of judgment as that's just the way the mind works. We don't see simply a bunch of colors and brightness levels, we see an image with associated information- possibly erroneous. Numerous optical illusions demonstrate that these mental images contain presumptions and conclusions our brain makes subconciously- even when we try to observe only physical reality 'as it is': we tend to see faces, we tend to make judgements as to depth, judgments as to what portions of an image are comprising a common object, what objects are moving relative to others, all these implicit conclusions frequently fail too as the illusions illustrate. The simple act of determining what is observed is not without doubt, conclusions. Additionally, these observations, with conclusions inherent in them, must be recalled, further distorting them.
Therefore, this experience itself contains judgments as well. This seems to rebut your claim that we can deal with such a base, unvarnished, reality. ( I would say that if we could it would nevertheless be worthless information without some conclusions interpreting them- just like binary code isn't readable untill some processing is done)
Quote:
The default position is not solipsism or nihilism. It is the world as it actually appears to us. Until a reason is introduced to cause us to doubt this given world, we have every reason to accept it as it is, since doing so has always worked for us.
I am not speaking of what is usual, acceptable, or pragmatic, but what is logical. As for "accept[ing] it as it is", how do we know what "it is"? I don't believe you've demonstrated that we can know this without conclusions that must be proven, and my counterexample above seems to suggest its doubtful you could establish that we ever truely have such raw data on the world, untouched by conclusions.
Quote:
I doubt there are any sincere solipsists here, because our natural, everyday behavior depends on a given world. And that should be the operating assumption until evidence is presented to make us believe otherwise.
Why? Again, I am speaking to what is logical and known, not what is a an expedient or useful outlook, practice. As such, I don't believe this assertion of what 'should' be our assumptions, as you admit in your post, has to do with what whether doubt is logical or even justified, which you seem to challenge, as to a conclusion until it is proven.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: johnm214]
#14559871 - 06/04/11 12:26 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said: And how do we know what 'experience itself' we are dealing with? The simple act of an observation is inseperable from some degree of judgment as that's just the way the mind works. We don't see simply a bunch of colors and brightness levels, we see an image with associated information- possibly erroneous. Numerous optical illusions demonstrate that these mental images contain presumptions and conclusions our brain makes subconciously- even when we try to observe only physical reality 'as it is': we tend to see faces, we tend to make judgements as to depth, judgments as to what portions of an image are comprising a common object, what objects are moving relative to others, all these implicit conclusions frequently fail too as the illusions illustrate. The simple act of determining what is observed is not without doubt, conclusions. Additionally, these observations, with conclusions inherent in them, must be recalled, further distorting them.
Therefore, this experience itself contains judgments as well. This seems to rebut your claim that we can deal with such a base, unvarnished, reality. ( I would say that if we could it would nevertheless be worthless information without some conclusions interpreting them- just like binary code isn't readable untill some processing is done)
Yes, experience comes to us with judgments and social constructs and assumptions. This is necessarily the state of affairs, but that is factually, descriptively, the starting point of epistemology. To pretend otherwise is to engage in sophistry.
Quote:
I am not speaking of what is usual, acceptable, or pragmatic, but what is logical. As for "accept[ing] it as it is", how do we know what "it is"? I don't believe you've demonstrated that we can know this without conclusions that must be proven, and my counterexample above seems to suggest its doubtful you could establish that we ever truely have such raw data on the world, untouched by conclusions.
I do not speak of the world "as it is." In fact, I am firmly rejecting such Kantian abstractions. I'm talking about the world as it is given to us in its presentational immediacy. This is our modus operandi. Before we can even start engaging in epistemology, we first have to learn to navigate this given world. The whole point of epistemology is to correct any misunderstandings about this given world so as to more reliably adapt to it.
Quote:
Why? Again, I am speaking to what is logical and known, not what is a an expedient or useful outlook, practice. As such, I don't believe this assertion of what 'should' be our assumptions, as you admit in your post, has to do with what whether doubt is logical or even justified, which you seem to challenge, as to a conclusion until it is proven.
You speak of "logic" as a given, but what is so logical about such abstract concepts as a thing-in-itself. To me, pragmatism is the most logical epistemology possible. So what if we are in the Matrix? Everything we experience is still true and valid within the context of that Matrix. And that is all the real question one must ask about truth: True in what context? If I see a pink elephant in front of me, it is not quite accurate to see that it doesn't exist. Rather, it exists within the context of my visual field. If I take it as a hallucination, then it is not an illusion. It is only an illusion if I take it to be true outside of the proper context. Is the sky blue? Within the context of human perception, yes. But not if I examine the properties of the air particles. All this stress about what's really true is overinflating the concept of truth. We ought to simply be investigating the contexts of our truths.
--------------------
|
evildee125
Here now



Registered: 03/23/09
Posts: 3,179
Loc: fl
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Silversoul]
#14561251 - 06/04/11 06:28 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
all discussions of this nature are bull.. and purely for kicks.. i mean cmon lets get real
|
Powdered_Toastman



Registered: 05/30/11
Posts: 5,589
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: evildee125]
#14565165 - 06/05/11 03:37 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
evildee125 said: all discussions of this nature are bull.. and purely for kicks.. i mean cmon lets get real
then dont reply to a forum about philosophy if your going to be so close minded? lol
-------------------- "I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain." You are God and I am You
|
evildee125
Here now



Registered: 03/23/09
Posts: 3,179
Loc: fl
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
Powdered_Toastman said:
Quote:
evildee125 said: all discussions of this nature are bull.. and purely for kicks.. i mean cmon lets get real
then dont reply to a forum about philosophy if your going to be so close minded? lol
ok man..
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!



Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: evildee125]
#14566021 - 06/05/11 07:17 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
In fairness, I think it should be acknowledged that trying to prove or disprove a "theory" like solipsism is just impossible. It's more of an assumption than a theory. Any debate on the subject, however erudite, is ultimately pointless as it will never resolve in a positive or negative conclusion.
But I mean, shit, who are we working for? If you're not here to waste your time, then... why are you here again?
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
|
evildee125
Here now



Registered: 03/23/09
Posts: 3,179
Loc: fl
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
same as everyone.. just bored 
|
Rahz
Alive Again


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
|
I think logic being applied to sensory information points towards existence outside the self, so although there is no absolute proof the likely hoods are not applied equally. It seems Solipsism is "all in the mind".
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
NetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Rahz]
#14566385 - 06/05/11 08:38 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Correctly understood, actually, logic does not suggest anything that objectively exists totally unperceived. That would be an unparsimonious assumption (we know our experience exists; anything outside of it we have no means of detecting, and furthermore, it would be subject to the same problem of origin). However, that doesn't suggest solipsism, I don't think.
|
Rahz
Alive Again


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: NetDiver]
#14566418 - 06/05/11 08:49 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I will argue that the entire system we percieve is set up in such a way that logically, it will go on without us and was going on without us, and is going on without us to a very large degree.
That's not to say the universe we exist in could have existed without us, but to me it means it is the universe which is dreaming us, rather than the other way around.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Rahz]
#14567807 - 06/06/11 02:25 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rahz said: ...to me it means it is the universe which is dreaming us, rather than the other way around.
So you believe that the universe as a whole is a conscious entity capable of having dreams?
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Poid]
#14567858 - 06/06/11 02:58 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Apparently.
No word on how this is ocnsistant with the defition of the word 'universe'- seems like it may be another person who liked the emotional implications of an idea but can't justify it, so he lies to himself and others by changing the definitions of words as needed, without comment.
Additionally, he provides no explanation for how this suggestion is possible or likely and fails to show how it is even consistant with our commonn observations. For example: when I dream of someone they are not aware of it. How could our situation be caused by the universe dreaming given that it is us, not the universe, whom is asking the question and interpreting the evidence?
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: johnm214]
#14567862 - 06/06/11 03:01 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said: How could our situation be caused by the universe dreaming given that it is us, not the universe, whom is asking the question and interpreting the evidence?
The universe could be dreaming us asking the question and interpreting the evidence.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Powdered_Toastman



Registered: 05/30/11
Posts: 5,589
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Poid]
#14568731 - 06/06/11 10:10 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
i think the way solipsism has always made sense to me is that we do in fact create our world around us, maybe not through physical perception, but think of the illusions in everyday life, the things that are society created, beleifs, fashion, television, music, etc. it all seems to me that this was all created through individual perception and how we interpret everyday life based on opinions and beleifs. Another idea for creating our own universe is the ability to create your own emotions and outlook, for example, someone walks by a painting and thinks it is absolutely revolting, while another walks by and finds it a masterpeice, idk if i am getting at anything
-------------------- "I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain." You are God and I am You
|
Rahz
Alive Again


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Poid]
#14568835 - 06/06/11 10:43 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
Rahz said: ...to me it means it is the universe which is dreaming us, rather than the other way around.
So you believe that the universe as a whole is a conscious entity capable of having dreams?
Thanks for asking rather than assuming. I was having a bit of fun with the idea behind Solipsism.
I do not think the universe is dreaming in any anthropomorphic sense, but it seems closer to reality than suggesting I am dreaming the universe, though I understand that it is the limitations of the mind and primacy of experience which created the idea of Solopsism.

Logic can also be used to read between the lines.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
evildee125
Here now



Registered: 03/23/09
Posts: 3,179
Loc: fl
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Poid]
#14606921 - 06/13/11 03:17 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
Rahz said: ...to me it means it is the universe which is dreaming us, rather than the other way around.
So you believe that the universe as a whole is a conscious entity capable of having dreams?
sure why not
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: evildee125] 1
#14606924 - 06/13/11 03:18 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Because that is a retarded belief, based on nothing besides wishful thinking.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!



Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Poid]
#14606967 - 06/13/11 03:27 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I would say the universe is capable of dreaming as demonstrated by our capability for dreaming. We are part of the universe and we are made of the stuff of the universe and we dream, so...
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
|
Sleepwalker
Overshoes

Registered: 05/07/08
Posts: 5,503
|
|
Quote:
Tchan909 said: I would say the universe is capable of dreaming as demonstrated by our capability for dreaming. We are part of the universe and we are made of the stuff of the universe and we dream, so...

However, this is just a matter of defining "the universe" differently. This is not what evildee was talking about.
|
evildee125
Here now



Registered: 03/23/09
Posts: 3,179
Loc: fl
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Poid]
#14620831 - 06/16/11 02:21 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said: Because that is a retarded belief, based on nothing besides wishful thinking.
thats just your view of it.. nothing more 
|
spikeycloud
Truth seeker

Registered: 11/22/11
Posts: 254
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Powdered_Toastman said: Since solipsism refers to only the self existing and everything else is just part of the mind, does that make it impossible to debunk? This concept seems kind of scary.
I think its pretty logical that solipsism does not exist for the following reason.
If everything there is, is just an imagination of your mind, then solipism is also an imagination of the mind (and your mind also for that matter). This goes in an endless impossible loop, therefore it is impossible for solipsism to be real.
Also how do you know what's real if you cannot compaire with something else that is real
|
Vaipen
Psychonaut

Registered: 01/15/12
Posts: 782
Loc: Europe
|
|
Quote:
Powdered_Toastman said: Since solipsism refers to only the self existing and everything else is just part of the mind, does that make it impossible to debunk? This concept seems kind of scary.
I am a solipsist. But there are those who find flaw with the idea. Personally I have solved these issues so to me there can be solipsism in its original core form while there are still other humans around. This to me is no paradox.
For me solipsism is the only ultimate answer to understanding reality because it solves many issues you otherwise have to account for.
|
Vaipen
Psychonaut

Registered: 01/15/12
Posts: 782
Loc: Europe
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Icelander]
#15672729 - 01/16/12 08:22 AM (12 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: I can guarantee that nobody's day to day actions reflect this philosophy whether they believe it or not.
But it sure is fun to pretend we believe it. 
A strange position. I am a solipsist and to me it is not a matter of philosophical debate or just some mind game. So my day to day perceptions are enframed by this model. That doesn't mean I walk up to people to exclaim 'you exist only in my mind.'
|
Vaipen
Psychonaut

Registered: 01/15/12
Posts: 782
Loc: Europe
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Rahz]
#15672795 - 01/16/12 08:55 AM (12 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rahz said: I will argue that the entire system we percieve is set up in such a way that logically, it will go on without us and was going on without us, and is going on without us to a very large degree.
That's not to say the universe we exist in could have existed without us, but to me it means it is the universe which is dreaming us, rather than the other way around.
I do not make a distinction between reality and myself. Without me there is no reality. When I die, reality collapses with me.
Have you ever wondered why it is possible that there exist different opinions abd views on reality etc?
Has anyone ever given you an answer to that question? Have you ever heard the question asked?
Apparently, reality has 'room' for many opinions or perceptions as to what it is. We take that 'room' for granted as we discuss all sort of topics. But no one ever seems to wonder how it can be that you and I can have different ideas on these matters.
What is it about reality that makes it possible to have different ideas? If there is some ultimate truth, like laws of nature that science shows there are, that are independent of our perspective of them, how could we disagree about them? Would they not be so obvious that opinion would not be possible about them?
Somehow reality allows for perspectives.
It seems therefore that solipsism is the only answer. Reality exists only to our minds; we can only know what enters our mind, the rest we cannot know. It is the separation between our minds that allows for reality to be regarded in many different ways. Solipsism creates this 'room' for different outlooks.
In that sense you could describe reality as foam. Within each bubble there is one mind.
The fact we can agree on many things is what I call the 'consensus'. This is a mean average of all mans' hopes, dreams, convictions, expectations, desires, emotions, feelings and so on and so forth. This consensus stabilizes or fixates reality to reflect this average. This consensus has a momentum.
Terrence McKenna has his timewave zero theory and Rupert Sheldrake talks about something similar, morphogenic fields and that things become easier once they have occurred before. They are talking about the same thing.
The consensus has momentum and opposing it will not yield you an alteration of reality. To achieve that the momentum has to be overcome. McKenna called it habit after Sheldrake suggested that. Habit is what I call momentum. It is a force alike a train on a rail. Sheldrake states that the past affects the present, which is another way of saying that consensus is maintained by previous events.
I have come to the same conclusion and was surprised when I learned about these two guys having the same idea.
To change reality, the momentum of consensus, the habit needs to be overcome by a force equal or greater to the momentum.
In the past people believed the earth was flat. I believe that it was. Nowadays we beleive the earth is a sphere. When observations got spread among scholars and within the church, slowly and steadily people became used to the idea and started to accept this new worldview. At some point a critical mass was reached and reality flipped over to reflect this new idea. At that moment reality changed. We would argue that the earth had always been a sphere. I do not believe so. When reality changes, it does so backward in time to make it look like the new situation had always been.
If this is the case, reality is merely a temporary agreement until a new consensus is reached. Therefore reality as such does not exist independently of the combined view of reality of all sentient beings.
For this reason I think when we enter into the psychedelic trip and meet other entities, they appear to us in sometimes indescribable forms. Their perception of reality differs from our own, therefore communication is so hard. There is no preset , no consensus between it and ourselves. You cannot ask them if they live on a planet, a sphere when they believe reality consists of Flatland.
So the fact that the world will go on when we die from the position of the survivior looking at granny in a coffin is by no means proof reality didn't collapse. It did for granny, and to granny that is all that matters.
|
yeah


Registered: 02/08/09
Posts: 3,729
Last seen: 1 month, 22 days
|
|
I'm alive suck my dick - my refutation
--------------------
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Vaipen]
#15673348 - 01/16/12 11:42 AM (12 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I do not make a distinction between reality and myself. Without me there is no reality. When I die, reality collapses with me.
"I do not make a distinction between MY reality and myself. Without me there is no reality (for me to be aware of). When I die, MY reality collapses with me."
|
spikeycloud
Truth seeker

Registered: 11/22/11
Posts: 254
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Vaipen]
#15673664 - 01/16/12 01:31 PM (12 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Vaipen said:
Quote:
Powdered_Toastman said: Since solipsism refers to only the self existing and everything else is just part of the mind, does that make it impossible to debunk? This concept seems kind of scary.
I am a solipsist. But there are those who find flaw with the idea. Personally I have solved these issues so to me there can be solipsism in its original core form while there are still other humans around. This to me is no paradox.
For me solipsism is the only ultimate answer to understanding reality because it solves many issues you otherwise have to account for.
You mean that the world is created but all the living things still are unique and have their own soul? Otherwise you can never be a solipsism because I know for sure I'm real
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: spikeycloud]
#15674014 - 01/16/12 02:54 PM (12 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spikeycloud said:
Quote:
Powdered_Toastman said: Since solipsism refers to only the self existing and everything else is just part of the mind, does that make it impossible to debunk? This concept seems kind of scary.
I think its pretty logical that solipsism does not exist for the following reason.
If everything there is, is just an imagination of your mind, then solipism is also an imagination of the mind (and your mind also for that matter). This goes in an endless impossible loop, therefore it is impossible for solipsism to be real.
How does that follow? You just declare this conclusion, but don't explain how it follows from your premise and reasoning. How is an "endless loop" impossible and inconsistant with solipism? That the world imagined by us is not real is all that is neccesary for metaphysical solipsism to be correct, and whatever the further consequences be, it does not change this status.
As for the claim that there exists an "endless loop", I don't see how. Why would solipsism being an imagination of the mind render it 'impossible' or something like that?
As an aside, it seems you are using the term 'solipsism' in a strange way- the mind's existance is not challenged by the concepts typically represented in the solipsist view, therefore this assertion in your post seems entirely unjustified.
Quote:
Also how do you know what's real if you cannot compaire with something else that is real 
It is you that has the burden of demonstrating that this is so. I don't see how this question justified your apparent presumption that there is some problem with understanding what is real.
And again, the mind is one such 'real' thing you could compare to, even if you are correct.
Quote:
spikeycloud said:
Quote:
Vaipen said:
Quote:
Powdered_Toastman said: Since solipsism refers to only the self existing and everything else is just part of the mind, does that make it impossible to debunk? This concept seems kind of scary.
I am a solipsist. But there are those who find flaw with the idea. Personally I have solved these issues so to me there can be solipsism in its original core form while there are still other humans around. This to me is no paradox.
For me solipsism is the only ultimate answer to understanding reality because it solves many issues you otherwise have to account for.
You mean that the world is created but all the living things still are unique and have their own soul? Otherwise you can never be a solipsism because I know for sure I'm real 
So what? You claiming you know your own reality doesn't present any obvious problem to the solipsist view, and you've not even alleged any such problem.
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: 4896744]
#15675642 - 01/16/12 09:12 PM (12 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Samurai Drifter said: What is the self, and what is the mind?
Those two questions should be answered before one decides whether solipsism is even a coherent viewpoint.
i think they are the same thing, that is, the interaction between our nervous system and the environment. in this sense we are much bigger than our bodies give us credit for.
Quote:
iThink said: I can guarantee that nobody's day to day actions reflect this philosophy whether they believe it or not.
i think there are some autistic people who reflect this philosophy whether they know it or not.
-------------------- Kupo said: let's fuel the robots with psilocybin. cez said: everyone should smoke dmt for religion. dustinthewind13 said: euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building. White Beard said: if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.
|
Sleepwalker
Overshoes

Registered: 05/07/08
Posts: 5,503
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Vaipen]
#15676675 - 01/17/12 04:16 AM (12 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Vaipen, I don't see how solipsism is the only answer to the question of why we have different perspectives. What if we simply have imperfect tools with which to discern the singular nature of reality.
A large ball can roll over a small hole without missing a beat. You can't tell if your balls are wet if you're wearing gloves.
|
spikeycloud
Truth seeker

Registered: 11/22/11
Posts: 254
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Sleepwalker]
#15676769 - 01/17/12 05:20 AM (12 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Again, solipsism can never be real. Because if you're real and the rest is fake. Your realness is based on a fake world so how can you know that you're real then? And how did you know that something like solipsism excist The same aplies to the term nothing, nothing does not exist because you need something to define there is nothing.
It's just so stupid
Edited by spikeycloud (01/17/12 05:35 AM)
|
Vaipen
Psychonaut

Registered: 01/15/12
Posts: 782
Loc: Europe
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Rahz]
#15676820 - 01/17/12 05:59 AM (12 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rahz said:
Quote:
I do not make a distinction between reality and myself. Without me there is no reality. When I die, reality collapses with me.
"I do not make a distinction between MY reality and myself. Without me there is no reality (for me to be aware of). When I die, MY reality collapses with me."
Mm. No. What I write is what I mean. I always try to be precise in my wording. And unless I go horribly wrong and make a mistake, what I write you can safely assume to be exactly what I intend to convey.
|
Vaipen
Psychonaut

Registered: 01/15/12
Posts: 782
Loc: Europe
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: spikeycloud]
#15676852 - 01/17/12 06:20 AM (12 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spikeycloud said: You mean that the world is created but all the living things still are unique and have their own soul? Otherwise you can never be a solipsism because I know for sure I'm real 
No, I create reality. I regard reality to be made of awareness energy. So, I am awareness energy. Since you are made of awareness energy as well, you can also claim to be the creator of reality. Awareness is undivided, so there si no distinction between you and me on the level of pure awareness. The fact we are separate individuals does not mean one of us must be real and the other is not. There are many belief systems where it is said that 'we are all one'. But I find that many theories and religions and philosophies hint at the nature of reality instinctively and build around their intuition declared models of truth. What I have done is to try to see the patterns in reality by looking at those models.
There is only a seeming paradox here. There is only one awareness, which is currently divided into several planes of reality, the physical universe, the mental universe and layers in and between them we have trouble perceiving, but accessible through the psychedelics for example. In the realm of consciousness, the area where we think and self reflect, the division is among sentient creatures, on earth and elsewhere that we know of by our interest in psychoactive substances. I have communicated with those, I am sure you have too.
However, awareness is indivisible and each of us has the total sum of its totality. It is indivisible in the sense that all things are created from it and that each sentient being has principle access to the total of it, as we create the universe, or rather, I do. I cannot speak for your beliefs naturally.
One of the core truths about this to me is that we all live in a perceptional bubble, that consists of awareness energy, so we all live in a unique universe, All that we share and seems consistent is locked by the consensus, the average momentum of all sentient beings beliefs, hopes, dreams etc. or in other words our mental state of being.
As such there is no reality apart from what we create on our own. Solipsism has some issues that need to be dealth with in order for it to function logically. I beleive I have solves these, so my universe is now fully explainable. But since I exist in my own bubble, my opinion can differ from your own yet still,w e are made of the same energy. From within my sphere I perceive the logic of my own mind in clarifying the situation of reality.
And that is all there is ultimately to it. We have to devise our own schematics and create an inherently logical structure and build it up to the degree of satisfaction that will suffice for each of us.
My system, my cosmology allows for other opinions to be integrated within the overarching structures. The structure of it all itself is in that way modular in some way and whatever comes up I seem to be able to explain it using my own model. For this reason I like my solipsism. Solipsism solves many issues that stem from the diverse intuitions of many people, the religions and the philosophies. The problem with most theories is that they go from a specific vantage point. That means that there are certain presumptions that are the result of not allowing the widest possible perspective and follow reasons and logic from within a model.
What I do is always step outside any model. That is how I integrate the idea that you are your own unique person, asking the question that you asked. I think in the end any TOE needs to be a self fulfilling model, something that always loops back into itself.
One day I will write a book about it.
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Vaipen]
#15676889 - 01/17/12 06:40 AM (12 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Vaipen said:
Quote:
Rahz said:
Quote:
I do not make a distinction between reality and myself. Without me there is no reality. When I die, reality collapses with me.
"I do not make a distinction between MY reality and myself. Without me there is no reality (for me to be aware of). When I die, MY reality collapses with me."
Mm. No. What I write is what I mean. I always try to be precise in my wording. And unless I go horribly wrong and make a mistake, what I write you can safely assume to be exactly what I intend to convey.
My correction was a disagreement. You should explain why your view is the correct one, let we think you're simply expressing a fantasy.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
Vaipen
Psychonaut

Registered: 01/15/12
Posts: 782
Loc: Europe
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Sleepwalker]
#15676890 - 01/17/12 06:40 AM (12 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sleepwalker said: Vaipen, I don't see how solipsism is the only answer to the question of why we have different perspectives. What if we simply have imperfect tools with which to discern the singular nature of reality.
A large ball can roll over a small hole without missing a beat. You can't tell if your balls are wet if you're wearing gloves.
It is not about getting to a point where we can all agree on what reality is. I think that is, well, what is it, that we are culturally affected or biased or perhaps scientifically oriented to want to reach conclusions. A conclusion is a point where you stop asking questions - I never stop asking questions. To me the whole ball game, no pun intended, is about a lifelong integration of ideas into a logical consistent model of reality. Each of us have to find an answer as to why our personal model is preferable or makes ore sense than another. For it to be preferable or better you need to observe your own mind and learn to see how it perceives reality.
So you have to understand the way in which your thoughts are unique on these matters, just as each of us dreams in another way. Check Stephen Laberge on the categories he puts forward about peoples' dream languages.
In the end our own personal perspective will always point to solipsism. Because in our universe the fact we can disagree is one of the most fundamental unanswered questions. The fact we can perceive reality differently proves to my mind that the nature of reality has this explicit attribute, that there is something that creates room for us to think differently.
So then what is this attribute? It must be a fundamental 'law' of some sort. And if there is such a 'law' then why can't it be found?
Perhaps the answer is that the law exist only in a personal fashion. That is, it exists only for the individual who finds it, again pointing toward a solipsist principle. If all these considerations keep pointing or looping back to solipsist principles that then clarify successfully and solve problems successfully of what reality is, then I go with that.
It is this attribute that time and again proves that a TOE or a cosmological model is by default, by this principle, a personal perspective. And it is the reason there will never be an agreement between debaters on, basically, what the fuck is going on. I find that tedious and lacking of satisfaction. I therefore have chosen to adhere to solipsism as my answer and created a model that satisfies me and provides a framework for the integration of new information, seamlessly into my own model.
If that is ultimately a satisfying answer, if you can find such an answer for yourself, then discussion about these things will provide you with information to integrate, but not necessarily an unsatisfying collision of ideas. What else would you need in life, then to find a personal answer to all that is and why and how, if you found your '42'.
The nature of reality allows for this approach, to find this personal model. Truth is not by any means a 'law' of some sort that exists independent of your opinion, bias or availability of information. That means, that if you collect more information you will understand the final answer. It is more the case that a personal satisfying solution will be a truth within your own perceptional bubble. The rest is just enjoying life to its maximum possible extent.
|
Vaipen
Psychonaut

Registered: 01/15/12
Posts: 782
Loc: Europe
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Rahz]
#15676928 - 01/17/12 06:55 AM (12 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rahz said:
Quote:
Vaipen said:
Quote:
Rahz said:
Quote:
I do not make a distinction between reality and myself. Without me there is no reality. When I die, reality collapses with me.
"I do not make a distinction between MY reality and myself. Without me there is no reality (for me to be aware of). When I die, MY reality collapses with me."
Mm. No. What I write is what I mean. I always try to be precise in my wording. And unless I go horribly wrong and make a mistake, what I write you can safely assume to be exactly what I intend to convey.
My correction was a disagreement. You should explain why your view is the correct one, let we think you're simply expressing a fantasy.
I would never declare my model to be the truth or the correct one. My model implicitly includes the fact the nature of reality is such that we can have different opinions. McKenna said to never believe anyone but check for yourself and that any guru who exclaims he knows the ultimate truth needs to be regarded with suspicion. I think it was in 'Search for the Original Tree of Knowledge' but I am certain he said it in more workshops or talks.
You seem to make a distinction between 'fantasy' and 'reality'. This to me is funny. :-)
Look at all these different people here, all contributing to the exchange of ideas. All of them have answers to many aspects of the fundamental questions. Most of them seem uneasy or dissatisfied with what they have so far and argue over their points of view, that to their mind and logic some view cannot be right or that someone is quite right in their perspectives.
What we can concluse is that no one can be right or we are all right.
It seems to me that it is amazing the cosmos does not implode or cease to exist because of the collision of conflicting ideas! Something is allowing for this disagreement to be possible. If truth, the ultimate truth of All Things would be around, I do not think there could be disagreement because reality would show us without any possible doubt what it is. We would see it in our mind, we would see it in the world, in the sense that McKenna talks about when he speaks of 'what if I could visually project my meaning into the air before you so we can observe it visually as some structure that can be beheld'.
We would intuitively and logically know it, in our mind or mind's eye, we would see it in some way embedded within all matter, we would be able to identify it as an undeniable 'god particle' or a wave of some sort. It would be in our vision, in whatever way, all the time.
And yet, it is not. To me this proves that the nature of reality, by default, by this attribute that allows for us to disagree and not see how or why we are different in our opinions, the way in which we can differ without the universe smacking us up the head to correct us, that reality is a personalized TOE and can never be anything else than that.
The fact you would or could disagree with me proves I am right in that respect. :-)
|
spikeycloud
Truth seeker

Registered: 11/22/11
Posts: 254
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Vaipen]
#15677637 - 01/17/12 11:29 AM (12 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Vaipen,
I can make the idea of solipsism even more bizarre. What if every human and maybe animal is in reality you in another live? That means that everyone that excist was a past you or a future you mixed in the fabric of space and time.
Edited by spikeycloud (01/17/12 11:32 AM)
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Vaipen]
#15680792 - 01/17/12 09:44 PM (12 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I would never declare my model to be the truth or the correct one.
We can argue semantics but when we express and defend ideas/beliefs there is a string of information leading up to the belief/opinion that caused it to form. It can be said that only the mind exists and everything else is questionable, but we can still deal in likelihoods based on the intake and manipulation of information. Nobody blindly accepts all information as equal. There is the phenomena of being proven wrong, and that is a large part of philosophy. To not question ideas, beliefs, and opinions and to apparently accept them as valid is polite at best.
I think it's neither emphatically possible to refute or prove solipsism, but it seems likely based on phenomenal data that other people's minds will still be existing after mine is gone.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
Vaipen
Psychonaut

Registered: 01/15/12
Posts: 782
Loc: Europe
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: spikeycloud]
#15681969 - 01/18/12 04:12 AM (12 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spikeycloud said: Vaipen,
I can make the idea of solipsism even more bizarre. What if every human and maybe animal is in reality you in another live? That means that everyone that excist was a past you or a future you mixed in the fabric of space and time.
I can believe that. Everything there is is awareness, all energy and matter consists of it. People too.
To me this is perfectly logical. It also explains many strange things. Like reincarnation. If you are everything, you in potential can know everything.
I think the universe exists as a place for experience. You see, it is one thing to be awareness, pure, in a situation where there is no universe. But what good would that do? You would be omnipotent and omniscient. A god in the truest definition.
You can foresee everything that can happen, but it never will and never has. For things to occur you need a playpen. That is what the universe is. A structure that allows for experience to be formalised, that every life that could be, would be. In that way it is our parth through life that has all the worth you ever need. To me the afterlife idea is folly. When you die your lifes' experiences are returned to the core of pure awareness, that sits in a non-existing 'place'.
|
Vaipen
Psychonaut

Registered: 01/15/12
Posts: 782
Loc: Europe
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Rahz]
#15681988 - 01/18/12 04:24 AM (12 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rahz said:
Quote:
I would never declare my model to be the truth or the correct one.
We can argue semantics but when we express and defend ideas/beliefs there is a string of information leading up to the belief/opinion that caused it to form. It can be said that only the mind exists and everything else is questionable, but we can still deal in likelihoods based on the intake and manipulation of information. Nobody blindly accepts all information as equal. There is the phenomena of being proven wrong, and that is a large part of philosophy. To not question ideas, beliefs, and opinions and to apparently accept them as valid is polite at best.
I think it's neither emphatically possible to refute or prove solipsism, but it seems likely based on phenomenal data that other people's minds will still be existing after mine is gone. 
But I never said the world is questionable. Only a fool would declare that then take a hammer and smack himself on the head with it. Real or not real, it will hurt.
I do not know what the original solipsists thought. Theirs was an extreme idealistic view. I think the solipsist idea does not necessarily collide with the external reality outside the self at all. They can be synthesized. If I state that all of reality is me, awareness energy, then declare that we can all claim to be that original awareness, then there is no conflict.
Solipsism to me is not about being arrogant and declaring all but yourself is unreal, it is more bestowing everyone with the perception of solipsism. Ultimately it is solipsism that allows for our disagreement, I have talked about this already.
To me all information is equal. It is the same point McKenna makes when he doesn't like science to be the ultimate arbiter of reality.
|
|