|
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, 8 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, 7 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, 7 months
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: NetDiver]
#14555008 - 06/03/11 10:58 AM (12 years, 8 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: 11 years, 10 days
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Silversoul]
#14555317 - 06/03/11 12:03 PM (12 years, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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: 7,598
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 15 minutes, 42 seconds
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Silversoul]
#14556896 - 06/03/11 06:27 PM (12 years, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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, 4 months
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Silversoul]
#14561251 - 06/04/11 06:28 PM (12 years, 8 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: 5,901
Loc: Arrakis
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: evildee125]
#14565165 - 06/05/11 03:37 PM (12 years, 8 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, 4 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, 8 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, 4 months
|
|
same as everyone.. just bored 
|
Rahz
Alive Again


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,260
|
|
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, 7 months
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: Rahz]
#14566385 - 06/05/11 08:38 PM (12 years, 8 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: 9,260
|
Re: Is it impossible to refute solipsism? [Re: NetDiver]
#14566418 - 06/05/11 08:49 PM (12 years, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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?
|
|