Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomCube.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Solipsism Revisited
    #4846074 - 10/24/05 02:46 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

To all those that are quick to negate the philosophy that nothing exists outside of one's own perception, how can you possibly prove otherwise? I've been racking my brain trying to find some way to make the principles of solipsism seem less blatantly obvious, but I'm at a loss here.

As Ravus pointed out in the first thread that I made on this topic, if you follow Occam's Razor very strictly, your end result will be solipsism. It seems to me that this is a HUGE philosophical problem that has been brushed aside for the most part. I would like to hear some others' thoughts on the matter.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 6 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4846140 - 10/24/05 03:04 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

you can't disprove it and it fits my worldview very well. you alone exist.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTameMe
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Deviate]
    #4846156 - 10/24/05 03:07 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

It sometimes sucks that you need proof. From my eyes, this is where faith becomes beneficial (for me atleast because the idea of Solipsism kind of makes me crazy).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: TameMe]
    #4846201 - 10/24/05 03:21 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

TameMe said:
because the idea of Solipsism kind of makes me crazy




Me too.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMoonshoe
Blue Mantis
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,202
Loc: Iceland
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4846354 - 10/24/05 03:55 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

solipsism isnt the whole story, but its a good starting point and if used properly is one of the mose empowering philosophies to hold. Solipsism makes alot of sense, and it can never be disproven.


--------------------


Everything I post is fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4846362 - 10/24/05 03:55 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

"We know that we know nothing," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge -- "There are no absolutes," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute -- "You cannot prove that you exist or that you're conscious," they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, or a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Solipsism is skepticism at the extreme.


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Moonshoe]
    #4846476 - 10/24/05 04:19 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Moonshoe writes:

Quote:

solipsism isnt the whole story...




Incorrect. It isn't even part of the story.

Quote:

... but its a good starting point...




Incorrect. If used as a starting point it leads immediately to the end point -- I am all that exists.

Quote:

... and if used properly...




The problem is that Solipsism by its very nature cannot be used properly.

Quote:

... is one of the mose empowering philosophies to hold.




Incorrect. Solipsism, if practiced consistently, leads to almost immediate extinction of the one practising it. It empowers those who are not Solipsists -- because we don't have to worry about Solipsists reproducing -- but it sure does the Solipsist no good.

Quote:

Solipsism makes alot of sense...




Incorrect. It is the least sensible of any philosophy.

Quote:

...and it can never be disproven.




Finally a correct statement. It is true it can never be 100% disproven. It is also true that you can't disprove I am the king of all the invisible unicorns in existence. Nor can you disprove that very very tiny invisible monkeys are manipulating invisible cables inside your head to make your eyeballs move. So what?




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTameMe
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Phred]
    #4846491 - 10/24/05 04:22 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Wow I feel better now. Thanks Phred!
:mushroom2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Phred]
    #4846496 - 10/24/05 04:24 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
It is true it can never be 100% disproven. It is also true that you can't disprove I am the king of all the invisible unicorns in existence. Nor can you disprove that very very tiny invisible monkeys are manipulating invisible cables inside your head to make your eyeballs move. So what?




Unlike invisible unicorns and tiny invisible monkeys, solipsism is supported by my perception. The fact that believing solipsism is inconvenient does nothing to discount it. Since when does reality conform to the meaningless aspirations of humans?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTameMe
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4846501 - 10/24/05 04:26 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

itstarssaddam said:
Since when does reality conform to the meaningless aspirations of humans?




Wouldn't Solipsism say yes?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: TameMe]
    #4846511 - 10/24/05 04:28 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

TameMe said:
Quote:

itstarssaddam said:
Since when does reality conform to the meaningless aspirations of humans?




Wouldn't Solipsism say yes?




No it wouldn't. Solipsism + No free will = merciless chaos

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTameMe
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4846513 - 10/24/05 04:29 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

But aren't you aspiring to believe those ideas (shifting reality)?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam] * 1
    #4846534 - 10/24/05 04:34 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

I could never tell my Mother with a straight face:

"Sorry, you ain't real! Yup. All that painful childbirth you went through? Pfft.  Fake! Everything in existence is a figment of my imagination. Nevermind all of reality that existed long before you gave birth to me. I.. am the sole source of existence. :snub: So, what's for supper?"



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4846540 - 10/24/05 04:36 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

The fact that you're uncomfortable discussing the tenets of solipsism with your mother also does nothing to discount it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTameMe
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: TameMe]
    #4846551 - 10/24/05 04:40 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

TameMe said:
But aren't you aspiring to believe those ideas (shifting reality)?




There must be some reason you believe it....I don't think it was just placed there.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: TameMe]
    #4846562 - 10/24/05 04:44 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

I believe it (or at least respect it) because there is no hard evidence to suggest an alternative viewpoint (other than personal comfort and social convenience), it is seemingly impossible to disprove, and it is the final product of Occam's razor.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4846600 - 10/24/05 04:54 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

this kills it dead:

"...However, if there are sources of ideas that behave as if they were independent of oneself, then they necessarily are independent of oneself. For if I define 'myself' as the conscious entity that has the thoughts and feelings I am aware of having, then the 'dream-people' I seem to interact with are by definition something other than that narrowly defined self, and so I must concede that something other than myself exists. My only other option, if I were a committed solipsist, would be to regard the dream-people as creations of my unconscious mind, and therefore as part of 'myself' in a looser sense. But then I should be forced to concede that 'myself' had a very rich structure, most of which is independent of my conscious self. Within that structure are entities -- dream-people -- who, despite being mere constituents of the mind of a supposed solipsist, behave exactly as if they were committed anti-solipsists. So I could not call myself wholly a solipsist, for only my narrowly defined self would take that view. Many, apparently most, of the opinions held within my mind as a whole would oppose solipsism. I could study the 'outer' region of myself and find that it seems to obey certain laws, the same laws as the dream-textbooks say apply to what they call the physical universe. I would find that there is far more of the outer region than the inner region. Aside from containing more ideas, it is also more complex, more varied, and has more measurable variables, by a literally astronomical factor, than the inner region.

Moreover, this outer region is amenable to scientific study, using the methods of Galileo. Because I have now been forced to define that region as part of myself, solipsism no longer has any argument against the validity of such study, which is now defined as no more than a form of introspection. Solipsism allows, indeed assumes, that knowledge of oneself can be obtained through introspection. It cannot declare the entities and processes being studied to be unreal, since the reality of the self is its basic postulate.

Thus we see that if we take solipsism seriously -- if we assume that it is true and that all valid explanations must scrupulously conform to it -- it self-destructs. How exactly does solipsism, taken seriously, differ from its common-sense rival, realism? The difference is based on no more than a renaming scheme. Solipsism insists on referring to objectively different things (such as external reality and my unconscious mind, or introspection and scientific observation) by the same names. But then it has to reintroduce the distinction through explanations in terms of something like the 'outer part of myself'. But no such extra explanations would be necessary without its insistence on an inexplicable renaming scheme. Solipsism must also postulate the existence of an additional class of processes -- invisible, inexplicable processes which give the mind the illusion of living in an external reality. The solipsist, who believes that nothing exists other than the contents of one mind, must also believe that that mind is a phenomenon of greater multiplicity than is normally supposed. It contains other-people-like thoughts, planet-like thoughts and laws-of-physics-like thoughts. Those thoughts are real. They develop in a complex way (or pretend to), and they have enough autonomy to surprise, disappoint, enlighten or thwart that other class of thoughts which call themselves 'I'. Thus the solipsist's explanation of the world is in terms of interacting thoughts rather than interacting objects. But those thoughts are real, and interact according to the same rules that the realist says govern the interaction of objects. Thus solipsism, far from being a world-view stripped to its essentials, is actually just realism disguised and weighed down by additional unnecessary assumptions -- worthless baggage, introduced only to be explained away."

http://www.freivald.org/~jake/deutschOnSolipsism.html


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: wilshire]
    #4846698 - 10/24/05 05:14 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

wilshire said:
this kills it dead




Nuh uh...

Quote:

For if I define 'myself' as the conscious entity that has the thoughts and feelings I am aware of having, then the 'dream-people' I seem to interact with are by definition something other than that narrowly defined self, and so I must concede that something other than myself exists.




In solipsism, only the mind exists. It is important to note that the mind refers not to the brain, or one's ego perception, but the totality of all that you perceive, this includes all of the senses. What are the people around me other than images, sounds, and feelings?


Quote:

My only other option, if I were a committed solipsist, would be to regard the dream-people as creations of my unconscious mind, and therefore as part of 'myself' in a looser sense. But then I should be forced to concede that 'myself' had a very rich structure, most of which is independent of my conscious self. Within that structure are entities -- dream-people -- who, despite being mere constituents of the mind of a supposed solipsist, behave exactly as if they were committed anti-solipsists.




As Uncle Tim loved to remind us, "the brain is composed of billions of neurons, each more powerful than a computer." With this type of power, the mind would be very much capable of constructing an intricate illusion.

Quote:

So I could not call myself wholly a solipsist, for only my narrowly defined self would take that view. Many, apparently most, of the opinions held within my mind as a whole would oppose solipsism. I could study the 'outer' region of myself and find that it seems to obey certain laws, the same laws as the dream-textbooks say apply to what they call the physical universe. I would find that there is far more of the outer region than the inner region.




How can you seperate the inner and outer region? EVERYTHING is sensation, no exceptions.


Quote:

Thus we see that if we take solipsism seriously -- if we assume that it is true and that all valid explanations must scrupulously conform to it -- it self-destructs.




The fact that we are trapped completely within our own perception, regardless of whether others' exists or not, cannot self destruct, with the exception of death, in which case you would cease to exist, and cease to perceive.

Quote:

The solipsist, who believes that nothing exists other than the contents of one mind, must also believe that that mind is a phenomenon of greater multiplicity than is normally supposed.




Why? Perhaps my perception is just a random quantum probability exaggerating itself. Its presumptuous to believe for a minute that we are entitled to an explanation for our existence, or an underlying reason or force.

Regardless of what arguments are pitted against solipsism, nothing can change the fact that all that we perceive is the only reality which we can and ever will experience. No book, no essay, no experiment can change this. We are locked within our individual ocean of consciousness, whether or not others have a similar experience is irrelevant because their experience can never be our own. What a liberating sense of isolation!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4846842 - 10/24/05 05:50 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

It is important to note that the mind refers not to the brain, or one's ego perception, but the totality of all that you perceive, this includes all of the senses. What are the people around me other than images, sounds, and feelings?

to a solipsist, yes, that is all they are. as you've read, he continues with, "to a commited solipsist..."

As Uncle Tim loved to remind us, "the brain is composed of billions of neurons, each more powerful than a computer." With this type of power, the mind would be very much capable of constructing an intricate illusion.

true. still no disagreement from me or the arguments made in the article...

How can you seperate the inner and outer region? EVERYTHING is sensation, no exceptions.

how do you learn? what are you learning about? where did you learn english? or did you invent english? if so, why?

whether the world exists as an external reality, or only in your mind, there is clearly a part of it which is outside of your control. most of it actually. you did not consciously create it and you have no conscious control over it.

the only way that solipsism can reconcile this is to assume that within the mind, there is an inner part, and in addition to that, a fantastically creative 'outer' part which is not under conscious control. if you are a solipsist, you must believe that if your mind prepared the post you are now reading, that it was the subconsious part. you did not consciously create this message.

so even if we assume for a moment that the world you experience is indeed only in your mind, it is not, even to the most ardent solipsist, all in your conscious mind. in fact, most of it is not. there is a part outside of your control. it behaves a certain way. it can surprise you, or scare you, or teach you. it is an external reality. solipsism offers no way around this final fact.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4846868 - 10/24/05 05:55 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

a long, but thorough, dissection of solipsism. worth the read:

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/solipsis.htm


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: wilshire]
    #4846877 - 10/24/05 05:57 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Well done.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: wilshire]
    #4846888 - 10/24/05 06:01 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

wilshire said:
how do you learn? what are you learning about? where did you learn english? or did you invent english? if so, why?




English is nothing other than symbols and sounds. I don't assume they have any reason for being here other than to assist me in rationalizing the unexplainable.

Quote:

whether the world exists as an external reality, or only in your mind, there is clearly a part of it which is outside of your control.




I don't claim to have control over a single aspect of reality. I firmly disbelieve in free will.

Quote:

so even if we assume for a moment that the world you experience is indeed only in your mind, it is not, even to the most ardent solipsist, all in your conscious mind. in fact, most of it is not. there is a part outside of your control. it behaves a certain way. it can surprise you, or scare you, or teach you. it is an external reality. solipsism offers no way around this final fact.




The duality between inner reality and external reality is a constructed illusion. Once again, sensation is all we have.

It seems to me that your argument is basically saying: "Solipsism can't be true, this all seems so real!"

But in my experience, things never turn out to be quite what they seem.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4847036 - 10/24/05 06:40 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

English is nothing other than symbols and sounds. I don't assume they have any reason for being here other than to assist me in rationalizing the unexplainable.

the point is not what that are but where they came from. did you consciously create the english language?

I don't claim to have control over a single aspect of reality. I firmly disbelieve in free will.

what then, controls reality? what creates it?

if it is only in your mind, then it follows that it is created and controlled by your mind, does it not?

The duality between inner reality and external reality is a constructed illusion. Once again, sensation is all we have.

no, according to your argument. sensation is all you have. i am a figment of your imagination. i do not have sensations.

It seems to me that your argument is basically saying: "Solipsism can't be true, this all seems so real!"

well then it is no wonder that you continue believing as you do! you miss my point entirely:

1. you are not consiously creating the sensations you are experiencing.
2. therefore, they come from a place external to your conscious mind.
3. therefore, something exists which is external to your conscious mind.

do you find fault with any of those statements?

did you read the link i posted?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: wilshire]
    #4847117 - 10/24/05 07:01 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

wilshire said:
the point is not what that are but where they came from. did you consciously create the english language?




I could thoroughly describe to you the evolution of written language, but it still doesn't rule out the possibility that its all formulated in my mind. I have only experienced English language in its current state, through my own perception. I have no knowledge of the steps taken to develop it other than what I have read in textbooks.


Quote:

if it is only in your mind, then it follows that it is created and controlled by your mind, does it not?




Not necessarilly. I have no idea what controls reality. I'm only suggesting that my mind is singularly perceiving and rationalizing it. You mistakenly assume that there must be some author or reason, while I can find nothing to suggest either one.

Quote:

no, according to your argument. sensation is all you have. i am a figment of your imagination. i do not have sensations.




Perhaps not. Currently you exist to me only as text on a screen.


Quote:

well then it is no wonder that you continue believing as you do! you miss my point entirely:

1. you are not consiously creating the sensations you are experiencing.
2. therefore, they come from a place external to your conscious mind.
3. therefore, something exists which is external to your conscious mind.

do you find fault with any of those statements?

did you read the link i posted?




I don't disagree with any of those statements. What I do disagree with is the suggestion that any of those statements are able to debunk solipsism. I scanned over the article and I will read it in its entirety either tonight or sometime tomorrow.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4847127 - 10/24/05 07:04 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

and if we explore this further, it gets pretty absurd. are you talking to yourself here? who is it that you are trying to convince, and of what are you trying to convince them?

you're talking to a figment of your imagination and trying to convince him that:

1. you exist and he doesn't
2. he exists and you don't

sound a little absurd?

we've already established that there is a part of reality that you do not consciously create. now we have two possibilities. ignoring the absurdness above for a moment, let's examine these two possibilities.

1. it is your "subconscious" mind that creates the reality your "conscious" mind experiences. it has created a universe that abides by certain physical laws. it also understands these laws to a great extent and has created the illusion that other people have understood them too by putting them in books in libraries of its creation. your conscious mind understands few of these laws however. every peice of art you've ever seen was invented by this unconscious mind. all music. all created by this mind. pop in a new record you've never listened to, and *whoop!* the unconscious goes into overdrive creating a work of art. it's a shame you don't have conscious control over this kind of creativity! i could go on and on in this vein, but you get the picture.

2. the universe actually does exist, i actually exist, you actually exist, and we are all a part of it.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: wilshire]
    #4847157 - 10/24/05 07:10 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Absurd indeed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4847162 - 10/24/05 07:11 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

I could thoroughly describe to you the evolution of written language, but it still doesn't rule out the possibility that its all formulated in my mind.

and if it is formulated in your mind, did you consciously formulate it?

I have no idea what controls reality.

but you would agree that it is outside of the control of your conscious mind?

What I do disagree with is the suggestion that any of those statements are able to debunk solipsism.

what it shows is that the sensations you experience arise by means of a process that you do not understand or have any control over. it is a reality external to your mind. calling it a "subconscious" as opposed to "reality" is a matter of semantics, and the whole thing is very contrived... invented for no other purpose than to be explained away. why not just do away with all of the extra complexity and baggage and call it for what it is?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: wilshire]
    #4847209 - 10/24/05 07:20 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

The problem is that the whole issue is a semantics argument. At the core of things, conscious or unconscious, the real question lies in whether or not there is truly anything beyond the moment we perceive.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4847278 - 10/24/05 07:33 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

At the core of things, conscious or unconscious, the real question lies in whether or not there is truly anything beyond the moment we perceive.

that question is a little different than the one solipsism addresses.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAmber_Glow
Sat Chit Anand

Registered: 09/02/02
Posts: 1,543
Last seen: 11 years, 29 days
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4847456 - 10/24/05 08:17 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

You do not really believe in solipsism or you wouldn't be here arguing with nobody.

If there is nothing external to you, wouldn't you have to be some sort of god being which has existed for an infinite amount of time? What do you think would happen if you tried to kill yourself? Would you die? How can you make nothing from something?

Edited by Amber_Glow (10/24/05 08:23 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Amber_Glow]
    #4847507 - 10/24/05 08:28 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Amber_Glow said:
You do not really believe in solipsism or you wouldn't be here arguing with nobody.




I admit that I do behave as if everything was real, but why not? Solipsism doesn't have a set of rules.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAmber_Glow
Sat Chit Anand

Registered: 09/02/02
Posts: 1,543
Last seen: 11 years, 29 days
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4847533 - 10/24/05 08:33 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Why should anyone want to talk to you, if you are not respecting our dignity as truly existing beings? You aren't taking any of our posts seriously. Shouldn't people be offended by your great insult that they do not exist? Do you have friends, and can they truly care about you when they know your feelings towards them are completely hollow and selfish?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Amber_Glow]
    #4847553 - 10/24/05 08:39 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Of course I am taking your posts seriously or else I wouldn't take the time to reply to them. If you're experiencing consciousness then why do you care whether or not if I'm questioning your reality? Jesus Christ dude...

And yes, while I may not have an abundance of friends, I do have some that are very close to me and with whom I thoroughly discuss my thoughts and beliefs.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4847601 - 10/24/05 08:49 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

i don't mean for you to take this as a personal insult, but throwing around "far out" ideas does not make you a philosopher. solipsism is an interesting concept, but it's quickly, easily, and thoroughly debunked. there are no great solipsist philosophers. it's a fallacy. it's something philosophy students today tend to make jokes about, not debate.

http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/philosophy/solipst.html


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: wilshire]
    #4847635 - 10/24/05 08:56 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

No insult taken, but no I am not trying to create the image of a philosopher by initiating this discussion. Simply discussing a logical problem that seems difficult to work around. At this point I still don't believe that solipsism has been (or can be) "thoroughly" debunked, nor do I attribute much weight to the consensus of contemporary philosophy students.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4847757 - 10/24/05 09:16 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

At this point I still don't believe that solipsism has been (or can be) "thoroughly" debunked...




Well, if you never get around to it, of course it will never be debunked. Since you are all that exists, you are the only one who can debunk the concept. Get off your lazy solipsist butt and get to work at it!

Quote:

... nor do I attribute much weight to the consensus of contemporary philosophy students.




... who would be you, since you are the only thing that exists. Stand tall and tell yourself that you don't attribute much weight to yourself. That'll show you!



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTameMe
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: wilshire]
    #4847941 - 10/24/05 10:13 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

wilshire said:
i don't mean for you to take this as a personal insult, but throwing around "far out" ideas does not make you a philosopher. solipsism is an interesting concept, but it's quickly, easily, and thoroughly debunked. there are no great solipsist philosophers. it's a fallacy. it's something philosophy students today tend to make jokes about, not debate.

http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/philosophy/solipst.html




Solipsism does seem pretty useless. I mean I like to argue...but this really is just arguing for the sake of arguing. I really don't see anything practical coming from this theory...or anything good.

itstarssaddam: So why bother?

Edited by TameMe (10/24/05 10:15 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Phred]
    #4849218 - 10/25/05 04:59 AM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
It is true it can never be 100% disproven.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelaotzu
daoist
Registered: 10/08/05
Posts: 28
Last seen: 18 years, 24 days
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4849528 - 10/25/05 08:59 AM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Here's a question. Does it really matter if solipsism is true or not? If solipsism is true, then your mind has created an extremely elaborate illusion in which a large number of things seem to exist independent of oneself and which behave according to certain rules. If solipsism isn't true, then all these things actually exist. But whether they exist or not, the same consequences occur for all of your actions. If you kill somebody and external reality is real, then you fill face certain consequences. If you kill somebody and everything is a construction of the mind, you will still undergo certain consequences because you seem to have no control over this vast illusion that you are experiencing. Everything one experiences, one experiences through the mind. Thus, whether or not the stuff outside of you is real or not doesn't matter; your experience of life is the same either way. I hope I'm making this point clearly; I have to run to class so I don't have time to write a treatise on the subject... if you don't get what i'm saying, just say so, and I'll rephrase.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: laotzu]
    #4851328 - 10/25/05 05:52 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Room full of mirrors....

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #4851411 - 10/25/05 06:23 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

If your mind has created all existing things, or has created reality, then there is seemingly no real phenomenological stimulation. What you call "the world", from a solipsist viewpoint, must then be a simulation of what it would be like to be stimulated. You could even say that what you call "the world" is a phenomenological simulation.

If this is so, that the solipsist's world is a phenomenological simulation, then ultimate solipsism cannot be true, for something cannot be a simulation without there being something that is being simulated, namely the real world. This means, that sure, solipsism may be true for you, but then you are probably in a coma of some sorts, and there really is a real world out there.

Or, a different approach: if a simulation is indiscernible from the real world, then, for all intensive purposes, it might as well be the real world. This means that solipsism is pointless.

Lastly, aside from phenomenological simulations and stimulations, solipsism requires a mind. How, and where, does this mind exist? Since a mind, in most probability, requires a brain, how can a solipsist coherently have a mind, without having a brain?

Another note: Just because something has not been proved false, does not mean that it is true. To make such a claim is to make an argument ad ignorantiam.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4851797 - 10/25/05 08:00 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Darcho said:
If your mind has created all existing things, or has created reality, then there is seemingly no real phenomenological stimulation. What you call "the world", from a solipsist viewpoint, must then be a simulation of what it would be like to be stimulated. You could even say that what you call "the world" is a phenomenological simulation.




A common misconception throughout this entire discussion is that solipsism declares that the mind "creates" reality, but this is not so. What I am arguing is that there is no way to validate anything beyond our immediate perception, to do so DOES require a leap of faith in any context. I'm not foolish enough to assume that this ocean of chaos is subordinate to any creator or purpose.

Quote:

If this is so, that the solipsist's world is a phenomenological simulation, then ultimate solipsism cannot be true, for something cannot be a simulation without there being something that is being simulated, namely the real world. This means, that sure, solipsism may be true for you, but then you are probably in a coma of some sorts, and there really is a real world out there.




You've lost me with all this talk of simulation.

Quote:

Lastly, aside from phenomenological simulations and stimulations, solipsism requires a mind. How, and where, does this mind exist? Since a mind, in most probability, requires a brain, how can a solipsist coherently have a mind, without having a brain?




Solipsism requires nothing other than sensation/perception. Why does this "mind" have to exist anywhere? Why does it "require a brain?" You don't even know that you have a brain, other than from what you've gathered from other dissected creatures that appear similar to yourself and science textbooks. This sounds absolutely absurd to the conditioned mind but logically it does add up when looked at from a different perspective.

Quote:

Another note: Just because something has not been proved false, does not mean that it is true. To make such a claim is to make an argument ad ignorantiam.




I totally agree with you here. Unfortunately, when strict logic and one's individual, immediate perception suggest something, it moves out of the realm of "ad ignoratiam" as you put it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4852071 - 10/25/05 09:07 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

itstarssaddam said:
Solipsism requires nothing other than sensation/perception. Why does this "mind" have to exist anywhere? Why does it "require a brain?" You don't even know that you have a brain, other than from what you've gathered from other dissected creatures that appear similar to yourself and science textbooks. This sounds absolutely absurd to the conditioned mind but logically it does add up when looked at from a different perspective.





If solipsism requires sensation, then this is where solipsism falls apart. Sensation implies that there is something external that is being sensed. The same with perception. If there is something external, then the world is not mind dependent, and therefore not dependent on your mind.

Tell me, what do you think the mind is? What do you think solipsism is, for that matter? I am pretty sure that solipsism has no requirements of sensation and perception.

I said that the mind most probably requires a brain, because this knowledge is only based on induction. I have yet to see a mind that is not brain dependent, and therefore can induce that minds are brain dependent.

As for knowing that I have a brain: MRI scans give fairly strong evidence, among other methods of brain scanning.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4852284 - 10/25/05 09:34 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Any sensation, according to Solipsism, is purely a product of your own mind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4852385 - 10/25/05 09:47 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Darcho said:
If solipsism requires sensation, then this is where solipsism falls apart. Sensation implies that there is something external that is being sensed. The same with perception. If there is something external, then the world is not mind dependent, and therefore not dependent on your mind.




You are falsely assuming that there is a difference between internal and external.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4852688 - 10/25/05 10:36 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Then answer this: what does it mean to have a sensation?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4852724 - 10/25/05 10:43 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Any type of sensory input. We divide this sensory input into categories such as sight, touch, sound, smell, etc. What we fail to acknowledge is that this classification of the senses is merely constructed and all sensation that we experience is just that, experience. It is difficult to define sensations because when we peel back the layers and look to their essence, there is nothing to be found. There is nothing other than the immediate totality of your perceptual state of being. This remains so whether or not you accept solipsism.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4852762 - 10/25/05 10:49 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

I'd also like to point out how alarmingly consistent the tenets of solipsism are with the theories of quantum mechanics, namely, "the observer determines the outcome of the experiment." How could this possibly be so if not looked at from a solipsist viewpoint?

The same goes for the "we are all one" philosophy preached by Buddhism and other Eastern religions. In the solipsist sense, we are all one because everything exists within the single individual perception. If this is not so, then that immediately falls apart, because we are simply not all one. I am not the people who are replying to my post, I am the person that is typing this one. There is nothing to suggest otherwise because the only perception I have ever experienced is my own.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4852831 - 10/25/05 11:00 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

So sensation is "sensory input?" Makes sense. But how do you have input from an internal source? In order for something to be put "in" it must first be "out".


As for the "we are all one" comment: you may be misunderstanding what is meant by this. We are all one, when speaking of our fundamental nature, not all one individual. For example, if you accept physicalism, then yes, we are all one, such that all being is of the same fundamental nature, but this does not mean that I am you and you are me; it does not mean that we are the same person.

As well, your comment about quantum mechanics being "observer determined" is still a debated issue. It may seem like a good idea to throw in a quantum mechanics reference, but to do so would complicate the issue further, since there is still much debate regarding the interpretation and implications of quantum theory.

Edited by Darcho (10/25/05 11:11 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4852855 - 10/25/05 11:05 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Darcho said:
So sensation is "sensory input?" Makes sense. But how do you have input from an internal source? In order for something to be put "in" it must first be "out".




This is turning into a semantics argument. I used the term "sensory input" because Im not aware of any other way to label the process I am referring to using the English language. What I am saying is that nothing indicates to me that I need to identify a source of sensation, internal or external, or that there is one. It simply IS the experience. When you begin to attempt to pinpoint a source it is a human attempt to rationalize the unexplainable, which is not possible.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4852951 - 10/25/05 11:24 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

When using language, semantics will always play an important role, for language without meaning is nothing but grunts and groans.

Since you seem to be giving up on the "sensation is sensory input" definition, you should provide an adequate definition of "sensation", or at least explain what you mean by "sensation." This is because the term seems to play a large role in your conception of solipsism.

If sensation is simply experience, I must ask you, what is it an experience of?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4853673 - 10/26/05 05:10 AM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Darcho said:
When using language, semantics will always play an important role, for language without meaning is nothing but grunts and groans.




We can give language all the meaning in the world and it is still nothing but grunts and groans on the larger scale. Just because our ape brains have to developed to a point where we can formulate concepts doesn't mean that the meanings we attribute to them are inherent.

Quote:

If sensation is simply experience, I must ask you, what is it an experience of?




I have no idea why we even experience as opposed to not existing at all, but I don't see how that could refute my point anyway. For all you know, you could be just software in a metaphysical computer projecting itself holographically.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekotik
fuckingsuperhero
 User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/29/04
Posts: 3,531
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #4853736 - 10/26/05 06:23 AM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
Quote:

TameMe said:
because the idea of Solipsism kind of makes me crazy




Me too.




me three.

especially paired with the m-theory, this will literally put me into a very strange mindset for a few days after thinking about it for a while, because everytime you come to a block that may seem like "nah, thats too weird" it's so tempting to just throw in as you said Occam's razor, and take the lesser of the two.


--------------------
No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4853788 - 10/26/05 07:17 AM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

itstarssaddam said:
We can give language all the meaning in the world and it is still nothing but grunts and groans on the larger scale. Just because our ape brains have to developed to a point where we can formulate concepts doesn't mean that the meanings we attribute to them are inherent.




Never said that language had any inherent meaning; don't build straw men. Still, words have semantic properties which are largely determined by context. For the most part, that context is the social context in which the words are commonly used. Anyway, it still stands that when using language, semantic clarification is unavoidable.

Quote:

I have no idea why we even experience as opposed to not existing at all, but I don't see how that could refute my point anyway. For all you know, you could be just software in a metaphysical computer projecting itself holographically.




I am not asking you why we have experience, so don't build another straw man. You claim that sensation is "simply experience", but for the word 'experience' to be used in a coherent manner, there must be the corresponding "thing of experience." So let us try again: what is sensation an experience of? Please do not build another straw man and avoid the question.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTameMe
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4854194 - 10/26/05 10:44 AM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

itstarssaddam said:
I'd also like to point out how alarmingly consistent the tenets of solipsism are with the theories of quantum mechanics, namely, "the observer determines the outcome of the experiment." How could this possibly be so if not looked at from a solipsist viewpoint?

The same goes for the "we are all one" philosophy preached by Buddhism and other Eastern religions. In the solipsist sense, we are all one because everything exists within the single individual perception. If this is not so, then that immediately falls apart, because we are simply not all one. I am not the people who are replying to my post, I am the person that is typing this one. There is nothing to suggest otherwise because the only perception I have ever experienced is my own.




This is the only post I've licked so far defending Solipsism.

It sort of leaves it open to...things will continue to go one even after you die (you just return to another part of the Self in a different form).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4854587 - 10/26/05 12:53 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Darcho said:
I am not asking you why we have experience, so don't build another straw man. You claim that sensation is "simply experience", but for the word 'experience' to be used in a coherent manner, there must be the corresponding "thing of experience." So let us try again: what is sensation an experience of? Please do not build another straw man and avoid the question.




I suppose sensation is being as opposed to not being. Without sensation, there is nothing, which is inconceivable to the conscious mind. Stop moving completely for a moment, stop thinking, do not attempt to rationalize anything and just be still. Your state of being at that time will be the only thing in existence from your perspective, to assume that anything else is existing will require faith. I guess I can't give you a concrete answer because you are still presupposing that you are experiencing a "thing." Why does this have to be so? When you tear down the labels and rationalizations behind everything you'll find there is no longer any point of reference, and no coherency. You are left with nothing but the sensation of your own isolated perception, with no clear source or meaning in sight.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4854811 - 10/26/05 02:06 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

"Because I have now been forced to define that region as part of myself, solipsism no longer has any argument against the validity of such study, which is now defined as no more than a form of introspection."

exactly! To study the "world" is to study ourselves. To study the nature of "matter" is to study the nature of existance!

I've only read two pages of this thread, because I have a test to go to, but I'll be back... please don't make it 15 pages long by the time I get back! lol!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4854827 - 10/26/05 02:10 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

seriously dude. read that link. solipsism is a JOKE.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: wilshire]
    #4854998 - 10/26/05 02:53 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

okay, I'm on page three and I see the argument running in circles over a few certain assumptions.

1) that there is a separation between our consciousness and a percieved world. This is a misunderstanding. Our consciousness IS our percieved world. My consciousness is no different than my experiances.

2) That if there is no "real" outer world that everything is a figment and is imagined. Just because there is no "real" english language doesn't mean we just "made it up". Instead, I believe that our consciousness is simply exploring patterns inside a matrix. Some patterns are not apparent to our "aware" self, but they still exist outside of our awareness.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMoonshoe
Blue Mantis
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,202
Loc: Iceland
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Phred]
    #4855823 - 10/26/05 05:50 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

phred: your reply to my post was big on oppinion and small on supporting logic. but thats cool man. maybe you and me have different ideas about solipsism. But solipsism can be very empowering. (and thats what i mean by "used properly")

if you are all and the source of all, then you are responsible for every single aspect of your existance. no more delegating responsibility or claiming powerlessness.

BTW: if you substituted "i disagree" for "incorrect" youd sound like less of an arrogant ****. IMHO.

and solipsism doesnt nescessarily lead directly to an "end point"

for me, solipsism was just one of many steps on my philosophical/cognitive journey. it oppend up new avenues of thought and understanding, and when i moved out of it, i felt richer for it.

Ultimatly i feel that the universe cannot be explained by any one pat system. THe universe defies explanation. Thus i feel it is good to entertain a variety of starkly contrasting beliefs, widen your horizons.

Mainly i think people reject solipsism out of hand and without much actual thought because it scares them shitless...

whatever. believe what you believe. i maintain that there is much wisdom is solipsism.

*Shrug*


--------------------


Everything I post is fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Moonshoe]
    #4856587 - 10/26/05 08:27 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

I used the term "incorrect" properly. It has nothing to do with arrogance and everything to do with accuracy. It's not my "opinion" that solipsism is a useless phlosophy, it's fact.

Since I made my post, others have contributed backup for all my points, some of which backup is considerably lengthier and more detailed than my own. The bottom line is the same -- solipsism is a narcissistic and ultimately useless guide to behavior. Even "useless" is too weak a term -- it's downright dangerous, both to the solipsist and to the people he interacts with.

I'm glad you moved beyond solipsism. Even your own personal encounter with it showed you its "value" -- you felt richer only once you had abandoned it.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4856889 - 10/26/05 09:27 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Someone emailed me the link to this post, and I just wanted to make a small comment on it before we all continue on our ways.

People argue that solipsism is useless and obviously false because it would mean that you're talking to yourself (as if that makes the experience any different). They say it "degrades" other people, that it's an obviously illogical philosophy because it would somehow assert "you" over "them".

In vivid dreams I've had, people have had strong arguments. I've had pity for others in the dream, argued with them, fought with them, even mourned for them, all with the pure conviction that these people were real. Yet in the morning I would wake up and realize that the arguments people made for their own existence said nothing about the truth of solipsism itself.

Solipsism is the simplest explanation not because it takes dissent out of the picture, as it does not; dissent remains the same, and people will still argue against you, as they would in a dream. The true source of solipsism springs from the fact that we never verify someone else's consciousness or thoughts as an actual experience. In a dream, they all appear to have their own consciousness and thoughts, but actually they are just two-dimensional actors in a temporary play, and no matter how convincing they are, the emotional convictions we experience in a dream in no way make the people in the dream real.

Yet somehow, as soon as people wake up and turn off their alarm clock, they believe the experience shifts radically. Of course you're the only person in the dream, but this is now, and we have logic and thoughts, right? But we come back to the same point we were at in a dream; we are only acting on our subjective emotional conviction, and not any actual evidence. One could theoretically create artifical intelligence that mimicked human intelligence, emotions and thoughts, even arguing aptly for its own consciousness and vehemently denying solipsism, without actually being real.

All philosophies that assume others have consciousness, emotions or experience rely on leaps of faith, assumptions and emotional convictions. This is, of course, more than good enough for most people; they try to logically justify it, always ignoring the persistent fact that they can never actually know whether anyone else has consciousness because they can never experience it, and in fact their own experience has taught them that, in a postmodern sense, there is no difference between "real consciousness" (if such a thing exists) and a mimicking character in a dream.

So before you think that just because "college freshmen joke about solipsism" that it is ridiculous and lacking evidence, perhaps you should try waking up and seeing if the college freshmen are even there. Indeed, there is no way to know, so based on our experience and Occam's razor, what is the more logical philosophy here? Just as one shouldn't be so quick to be defeated by illusions in a dream, one should also question this waking dream we experience everyday and try thinking about what we actually know about the actors that would be the first to silence our questions.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 6 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Ravus]
    #4857003 - 10/26/05 10:02 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

excelent post ravus and why did you leave? i've really missed your contribution to this forum.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Deviate]
    #4857096 - 10/26/05 10:17 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Indeed, there is no way to know, so based on our experience and Occam's razor, what is the more logical philosophy here?




You speak of "experience." What is "experience," solipsistically speaking?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4859201 - 10/27/05 01:01 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Darcho said:
What is "experience," solipsistically speaking?




The perception of the individual.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4859215 - 10/27/05 01:04 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Individual what? Perception what?

I am so solipsistically ignorant....

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4859243 - 10/27/05 01:12 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

I no longer understand the questions you are asking, nor do I see what end you are trying to attain with them. Rereading Ravus's reply a few times should help you to become solipsistically informed.

This might help as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4859407 - 10/27/05 01:52 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

"As for the "we are all one" comment: you may be misunderstanding what is meant by this. We are all one, when speaking of our fundamental nature, not all one individual. For example, if you accept physicalism, then yes, we are all one, such that all being is of the same fundamental nature, but this does not mean that I am you and you are me; it does not mean that we are the same person."

Why couldn't it be interpreted that way? There is more than one way to skin a cat... To me itsstarsaddam makes a very good connection between solipsism and the "we-are-all-one" idea. Why can't we all just be multiple personalities of the same universal consciousness?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: dr0mni]
    #4859440 - 10/27/05 02:01 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

What is consciousness?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4859513 - 10/27/05 02:23 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

itstarssaddam said:
I no longer understand the questions you are asking, nor do I see what end you are trying to attain with them. Rereading Ravus's reply a few times should help you to become solipsistically informed.




Ravus' post equivocates between the epistemological and metaphysical versions of solipsism, which are conveniently expounded, to a low degree, in the wikipedia link you posted. This equivocation is why his post is not all that insightful.

As for the differences between epistemological solipsism and metaphysical solipsism, well these are important to distinguish when speaking of solipsism.

If we are speaking of epistemological solipsism, then all we are really talking about is "the problem of other minds." This problem will eventually be solved, in light of cognitive science as it enriches our concept of mind. Epistemological solipsism is nothing to fret over, and you should instead try working toward solving the problem, instead of playing the role of a lazy defeatist. Call me optimistic, if you like.

If we are speaking of metaphysical solipsism, then what we are saying is that all that exists is my mind (or your mind, or whoever else's mind). This is Idealism to the extreme, and has sufficiently been refuted by Russell and Moore in The Problems of Philosophy and The Refutation of Idealism, respectively. Metaphysical solipsists speak so freely of "experience", "sensation" and "perception", however if solipsism is true, then these concepts are either a) meaningless, or b) complicating the issue at hand more than it needs to be.

If a), then the solipsist has no case; solipsism becomes meaningless.
If b), then if we are to favour Occam's Razor, solipsism would not be the first choice in regards to simplicity.

In order to make sense of solipsism, you have to make sense of "experience", "sensation" and "perception" qua solipsism. While doing this, in order to keep solipsism coherent, you must not complicate the issue (i.e. give an account of "experience", "sensation" and "perception" that is not more complicated then, say, a physicalist's account).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekotik
fuckingsuperhero
 User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/29/04
Posts: 3,531
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4859702 - 10/27/05 03:01 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

if we are to favour Occam's Razor, solipsism would not be the first choice in regards to simplicity.




so what would the first choice be? how could anyone possibly come up with the most simplistic choice when its more personal than anything else?


--------------------
No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: dr0mni]
    #4859813 - 10/27/05 03:24 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

"If sensation is simply experience, I must ask you, what is it an experience of?"

Patterns and relationships! When we perceive an object or idea all we are doing is comparing patterns and relationships to one another. Patterns of light, of sound, of neural activity, etc.

You can't use the word "real" in this kind of discussion because it doesn't really have any contextual meaning.

So asking "where do the 'input factors' come IN from?" should really be thought of as "what is the origin of these patterns?" (which I'm sure most of us shroomerites have asked ourselves this question at least once :wink: ). Could these patterns be a kind of self-emergent behavior? Some kind of chaotically organized vacuum flux?

Quantum physics tells us that there truely is no objective reality and that the world exists as a sort of sub-atomic fuzz of organized randomness until we observe it and it collapses into measurable, quantifiable values/ratios (which we can only be certain of to a degree). Thus consciousness has a direct effect on the way that "reality" is percieved.

It is more likely that this is all one sytem of patterns and there is no such thing as "inner" or "outer" as these ideas are only illusions. As our science develops it seems that our old idea of cartesian duality doesn't really work. They mind and the body are not seperate but intrinsically intertwined. A city of concrete and steel was not just created by sweat and physical energy, but by ideas, by thought, by pure will. Consciousness doesn't just move our bodies, it can move mountains and split atoms.

You have to wonder where the distinction between the consciousness and matter actually occurs and if it even exists at all. I love reciting the old quote, "How do we know that a rock rolling down a hill doesn't know where it's going?" and the truth is we can't unless you define consciousness under purely human/mammalian criteria.

but our conscious interaction with "the world" might just be a purely deterministic interaction of patterns, and if this is true then consciousness could be present everywhere that patterns are interacting with each other.

Under this type of view, the universe becomes not a split between objects and observers, but a unified existance which is self aware AND self contained with no meaning for "inner/outer".

and THIS is why solipsism isn't a completely crazy idea. It actually makes the most sense if you let go of old ideas of "real" and "imagined"... these ideas don't mean what they used to anymore.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: dr0mni]
    #4861264 - 10/27/05 08:48 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

You are committing the fallacy of composition: attributing a property of a part to the whole. Just because you may be conscious, does not necessarily mean that the universe is conscious. Similarly, just because a brain maintains intelligence, it does not mean that each individual neuron maintains intelligence (this would actually be a fallacy of decomposition: attributing a property of the whole to its parts, but it has the same basic principle as the fallacy of composition).

I am not entirely convinced that consciousness actually has any causal power, call me a closet-epiphenomenologist if you will. Until consciousness and qualia have undergone a successful physical reduction, or a functional reductive explanation, there is no reason to think that consciousness is anything but an emergent property of the brain and its interaction with the body and the world.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejustamonkey
Stranger

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/26/05
Posts: 292
Loc: Upstairs
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4865699 - 10/28/05 11:43 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

The way I see it, if you believed in it, why would you talk to other people, that'd be like talking to yourself, and you can do that at home :smile: The only way you can disprove solipsism, is that if only the self exists, why are you making it so difficult by imagining all these other people in your reality? Just be all powerful and get it overwith already, after all, you are your own master.


--------------------
[quote]We don't need anyone to teach us sorcery, because there is really nothing to learn. What we need is a teacher to convince us that there is incalculable power at our fingertips. What a strange paradox! Every warrior on the path of knowledge thinks, at one time or another, that he's learning sorcery, but all he's doing is allowing himself to be convinced of the power hidden in his being, and that he can reach it. [/quote]-Carlos Casteneda

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: justamonkey]
    #4866640 - 10/29/05 10:07 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

If metaphysical solipsism is true, why can't I shoot a fireball out of my hand? Why can't I have all the money and women in the world? Why can't I..., ad infinitum.

Not so simple is it...?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4866655 - 10/29/05 10:14 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Solipsism doesn't claim to triumph over the laws of physics.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4866738 - 10/29/05 10:51 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

It is becoming increasingly apparent you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "solipsism".

Solipsism states as its central tenet (indeed, its only tenet) that your consciousness is all that exists. I, Phred, do not exist. I am a figment of your, itstarssaddam's -- imagination. Similarly, there are no "laws of physics", there is nothing but your imagination. There are no entities to which you may even apply the laws of physics, there is just your imagination. All you "experience" is nothing more than a waking dream.

This is why it's fruitless to invest any amount of time arguing with a solipsist -- to a solipsist he is quite literally arguing not with another entity, but with himself. Since he is entirely capable of doing that on his own, why not leave him to it? Why bother humoring him?

My reason for debunking the philosophy of Solipsism is not to convince the solipsist of the error of his ways (he can always claim he's just trying to deceive himself and therefore he should not believe what he is telling himself) but to demonstrate to non-solipsists just how simple it is to debunk the philosophy and why they should simply ignore anyone claiming to be a Solipsist.

The irony of course is that even those claiming to be Solipsists are in fact not. None I have ever met behaves as if he actually believes in Solipsism's central tenet. Perhaps this is because (as I pointed out earlier) consistently behaving as if Solipsism is a valid philosophy results in the rapid extinction of the Solipsist. It's one of nature's evolutionary self-correcting mechanisms.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 17 years, 1 day
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Phred]
    #4866883 - 10/29/05 11:51 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

The irony of course is that even those claiming to be Solipsists are in fact not. None I have ever met behaves as if he actually believes in Solipsism's central tenet.




that's a confusion of fact and value.

a choice between box A and B. one box holds vanilla ice cream, the other chocolate.

two people could come along and both choose box A. one person believes it holds vanilla, the other believes it holds chocolate. yet because they value one flavor vs. the other, they both choose box A.

in the same way, two people who like the same flavor could come along and choose different boxes. let's say both like vanilla. yet one believes box A holds vanilla, and the other believes box B holds vanilla. they would choose different boxes.

it's impossible to deduce from a person's actions alone what they believe about reality, since their actions may be consistent with their values.


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTheGus
The Walrus

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 387
Last seen: 16 years, 1 month
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4866940 - 10/29/05 12:10 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter in the universe is energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness sharing in itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is but a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves..."




--------------------
"It is easier to teach a computer to play chess than to build a mudpie."Sherry Turkle Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts"-Einstein
:mrt: I pity the fool who break traffic laws with $870,000 of drugs in the car.      -mo0nlite_sonata
Psythos

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: TheGus]
    #4867082 - 10/29/05 01:09 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Yes, the words of a comedian have validity!  They take precedence over and above all else!  And a young man on acid realized this, none the less.  (We all know how accurate hallucinations are at depicting reality :rolleyes:.)

Remember folks, do not equivocate between epistemological solipsism and metaphysical solipsism.  One pertains to knowledge and the other pertains to being, respectively. (itstarssaddam, I am looking at you buddy.)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4867629 - 10/29/05 04:50 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Darcho said:
You are committing the fallacy of composition: attributing a property of a part to the whole. Just because you may be conscious, does not necessarily mean that the universe is conscious.




You misunderstand me. I made no such fallacy. All I said was that there is no way for us to know (at the moment) where the line between physical processes of the brain, and consciousness, is drawn.

A brain reacts to stimuli and it is considered conscious, even though the reaction is purely deterministic (or at least seems to be). An amoeba reacts to stimuli in a deterministic way, but is not considered conscious. Why? Is it because it's reactions are not as complex as our own? Well how complex can a single celled organisms' reaction be? What about ants? they are very complex but are they considered to be on the same level of consciousness as us?

If you believe that there are varying levels of consciousness with self awareness near the top and everything else below it, then where does consciousness stop and inanimate physical process begin?

So you see, I'm not attributing a property of the whole to it's parts, I'm asking where that property STOPS belonging to it's parts. Where do we draw the line between what is conscious and what is not.

Quote:

there is no reason to think that consciousness is anything but an emergent property of the brain and its interaction with the body and the world




Okay, I can deal with that, but why the brain? What conditions are that consciousness emerging from? Is the consciousness comming from neuron interactions? Is it comming from the electric impulses in the brain? Does it arise from a subatomic or a hyperatomic interaction? How sophisticated do these interactions have to be before self-awareness arises?

It seems to me that we CAN'T make a logical distinction between consciousness and non-consciousness at the present moment. And for me it makes more sense to believe that consciousness is an intrinsic property of existence like space and time.

And so I ask again. How DO we know that a rock rolling down a hill doesn't know where it's going?

(*I know I asked a lot of questions, but they are purely rhetorical*)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: dr0mni]
    #4868420 - 10/29/05 09:28 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:


How DO we know that a rock rolling down a hill doesn't know where it's going?




Does this rock have sensory capabilities; does it sense?

Most probably not, or else geology would have to have its own system of ethics for when it deals with conscious rocks (we wouldn't want to undermine their moral rights, now would we?).

There is no awareness without sensation; no awareness without input for vision, audition, olfaction, gustation, and/or somatosensation.

Does a man, senseless from birth (the senseless man), have the property of being conscious? Probably not, but if so, then what is he conscious of?

Sure, in the end, it is an inductive argument:

1. All beings with brains exhibit conscious behaviour.
2. No beings without brains exhibit conscious behaviour.
3. Therefore, only beings with brains have a capacity of maintaining consciousness.

However, until there is evidence presented that falsifies premise 2, then it is highly probable that only beings with brains maintain consciousness, and it is highly improbable that any being without a brain maintains consciousness.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4868635 - 10/29/05 10:26 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

I disagree with metaphysical solipsism because:
Quote:

Darcho said:
If metaphysical solipsism is true, why can't I shoot a fireball out of my hand? Why can't I have all the money and women in the world? Why can't I..., ad infinitum.

Not so simple is it...?




...and I disagree with epistemological solipsism because I don't think a person has a 100% accurate view of themselves. Everyone has a certian degree of incongruenty between how they think they are and how everyone else thinks they are.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4868741 - 10/29/05 10:52 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Darcho said:
Remember folks, do not equivocate between epistemological solipsism and metaphysical solipsism. One pertains to knowledge and the other pertains to being, respectively. (itstarssaddam, I am looking at you buddy.)




I don't know what it means to "equivocate epistemological solipsism and metaphysical solipsism." Where is the line of seperation between knowledge and being?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4868769 - 10/29/05 10:59 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

itstarssaddam said:
I don't know what it means to "equivocate epistemological solipsism and metaphysical solipsism." Where is the line of seperation between knowledge and being?




You are creating a straw man with your last question here. The issue is not drawing a line between knowledge and being, the issue is equivocating between uses of the term 'solipsism.'

SolipsismE - One can only know their own mind, and cannot know the minds of others. Therefore one cannot infer that others have consciousness. This is a reiteration of "The Problem of Other Minds."

SolipsismM - All that exists, in what may be called "reality", is one's own mind. Every existant in this "reality" is a product of one's own mind.

This is the difference between the two usages of 'solipsism'. By equivocating between the two, an incoherent argument is formed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4868791 - 10/29/05 11:08 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

What if one can only know their own mind, which is all that exists? How is this incoherent?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4868951 - 10/29/05 11:51 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Then you would be omniscient, which is a paradox in itself.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4868953 - 10/29/05 11:53 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

How so?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejustamonkey
Stranger

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/26/05
Posts: 292
Loc: Upstairs
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4870080 - 10/30/05 10:19 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

how many people can believe in solipsism to make it true? It's between zero and two, and it's an integer.


--------------------
[quote]We don't need anyone to teach us sorcery, because there is really nothing to learn. What we need is a teacher to convince us that there is incalculable power at our fingertips. What a strange paradox! Every warrior on the path of knowledge thinks, at one time or another, that he's learning sorcery, but all he's doing is allowing himself to be convinced of the power hidden in his being, and that he can reach it. [/quote]-Carlos Casteneda

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4870082 - 10/30/05 10:19 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

A1) If you know your own mind, and your own mind is all that exists; is all existing things (abstract and concrete), then you know all that exists.

Let us equate "all that exists" with "everything."

Now re-equate A1, as:

A2) If you know your own mind, and your own mind is everything, then you know everything.

To know everything would be to have absolute knowledge. The concept of "omniscience" refers to this absolute knowledge.

A3) If you know your own mind, and your own mind is everything, then you are omniscient.

This is how you would be omniscient.

How is omniscience paradoxic, and a straight-up contradiction?

Omniscience is absolute knowledge. Absolute knowledge is incoherent.

Semantically speaking, "knowledge" is meaningless without "ignorance". Similarly, "ignorance" is meaningless without "knowledge". This is because these two concepts are negations of each other. "Ignorance" is synonymous with "non-knowledge", and "knowledge" is synonymous with "non-ignorance". In order for "non-ignorance" to have any meaning there would have to actually be "ignorance".

Epistemologically speaking: If we know everything, then we must be able to know what it means to be ignorant. However, to be ignorant is to be non-knowledgeable. Let us reiterate: If we know everything, then we must be able to know what it means to be non-knowledgeable. If we know what it is to be non-knowledgeable, then we do not know everything, because there is something that we do not know.

There are two grounds in which omniscience stands as a contradiction out of paradox: semantically and epistemologically.

Looking back to: "What if one can only know their own mind, which is all that exists? How is this incoherent?"

The incoherency lies within the contradictory nature of omniscience. However, there is no need to fret, you can remedy this "incoherency" with one step: deny the law of non-contradiction. Which is fine, but then you have to make sense of a world where X = not-X is true. This is now on a completely different battle ground: put solipsismM-E on hold, we have to now figure out how "everything = nothing" makes sense before we can even begin to make sense of solipsism. This is not such a simple thing anymore, this project of simultaneous epistemological-metaphysical solipsism.

Edited by Darcho (10/30/05 10:20 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: justamonkey]
    #4870087 - 10/30/05 10:21 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

justamonkey said:
how many people can believe in solipsism to make it true? It's between zero and two, and it's an integer.




We also believe things that are false, hence a "false-belief."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4870115 - 10/30/05 10:31 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Darcho said:
How is omniscience paradoxic, and a straight-up contradiction?

Omniscience is absolute knowledge. Absolute knowledge is incoherent.




It seems to me that absolute knowledge is the totality of the individual's current knowledge at any given moment. Any knowledge that has not yet been acquired is nonexistent until observed. Therefore, the equivocation of metaphysical and epistemological solipsism is still consistent with my own perceptual experience.

As for "everything = nothing..."

Quote:

itstarssaddam said:
When you tear down the labels and rationalizations behind everything you'll find there is no longer any point of reference, and no coherency. You are left with nothing but the sensation of your own isolated perception, with no clear source or meaning in sight.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4870282 - 10/30/05 11:11 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Darcho said:
Quote:


How DO we know that a rock rolling down a hill doesn't know where it's going?




Does this rock have sensory capabilities; does it sense?

There is no awareness without sensation; no awareness without input for vision, audition, olfaction, gustation, and/or somatosensation.



Keep in mind that you are defining HUMAN awareness. A human senses light via sight and reacts. This is evidence of consciousness, right? A fungus senses light (phototropism) and grows towards/away from it. The fungus senses stimuli and reacts to it. Is it not aware of the light despite the fact that it has no sensory organs or a nervous system? Is a fungus conscious? It has no brain yet it has the capability of awareness, albiet not the same kind of awareness that a human has.

How can we know that an amoeba swallowing another single-celled organism doesn't know what/that it is eating?




Does a man, senseless from birth (the senseless man), have the property of being conscious?  Probably not, but if so, then what is he conscious of?



Good question! There is no sensory INput, yet there could still be neural activity. Patterns interacting within a structure designed for awareness. Perhaps this man would not have a sense of separateness from the world, but might only experiance pure, unadultered existence. No ego could be built from collective experiance. No duality could be his reality. How lucky is this man to be born into the divine oneness that we all stuggle for lifetimes to achieve!

Could a rock not have a similar type of consciousness. Not of inner or outer, but of unity? There could be no ego or illusion. Senses often distort our perception of reality (unless perception IS reality). Perhaps a rock, devoid of convoluted senses, experiances reality as it truly is, while we are stuck inside this illusion, imagining that we are knowing more than the rock.:grin:

We define consciousness by the criteria of our OWN consciousness which is dominated by what we call sensory input. This does not mean that consciousness is always dependent upon sensory input.




Sure, in the end, it is an inductive argument:

1.  All beings with brains exhibit conscious behaviour.
2.  No beings without brains exhibit conscious behaviour.
3.  Therefore, only beings with brains have a capacity of maintaining consciousness.

However, until there is evidence presented that falsifies premise 2, then it is highly probable that only beings with brains maintain consciousness, and it is highly improbable that any being without a brain maintains consciousness.



Okay, maybe you're right. I don't claim to know anything for sure. I wouldn't limit consciousness to brains, but instead to at least an organized sytem of specified complexity.

So we have this organized and dynamic system from which consciousness (however you want to define it) arises. But what is different about this system compared to others that gives it this property of consciousness? Does it have to do with the level of complexity or the manner in which it is organized?

On the subatomic level the system becomes an indistinguishable sea of protons, neutrons, and electrons. There is no difference between each atom more significant than the ratios between said particles. So organization in the brain on a subatomic level is not terribly different from a rock or bird or whatever. But there remains that largely unexplored quantum fuzz in which unknown possiblities exist for complex and interacting patterns which might cause consciousness.

On a molecular level, though, there is a marked difference in the way that the system is organized. On this level unique patterns emerge from the interaction of the system with surrounding systems.

I now propose two possiblities (that I probably won't be able to defend against the skeptics because I'm really just bullshitting here):
1) That the origin of consciousness arises from a subatomic level and is possibly everywhere at once. Exlporation of consciousness might be done through physics, etc. It is the sub-atomic/sub-quantum patterns that cause consciousness.

2) That the origin of consciousness arises from emergent patterns of a dynamic and organized system. Exploration of consciousness might be done through examining these patterns and determining at what level we can draw the line between consciousness and non-consciousness. What characteristics do conscious patterns have that make them so different?

The only problem with this second proposal is that IF this conscious pattern extends throughout all of existence (meaning that the whole universe is one consciousness) that we will not find such a pattern because there will be no non-conscious pattern to compare it to.

But in both of these proposals I suggest that the cause of consciousness is the interaction of PATTERNS, on whatever level. The cartesian idea of a "mind substance" separate from physical matter goes out the window along with the spiritual idea of a soul independent of the phyical body.

and I'll stop there because I'm sure I lost a few people who didn't want to read so much. LOL!




Edited by dr0mni (10/30/05 11:12 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #4870294 - 10/30/05 11:14 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
I disagree with metaphysical solipsism because:
Quote:

Darcho said:
If metaphysical solipsism is true, why can't I shoot a fireball out of my hand? Why can't I have all the money and women in the world? Why can't I..., ad infinitum.

Not so simple is it...?




...and I disagree with epistemological solipsism because I don't think a person has a 100% accurate view of themselves. Everyone has a certian degree of incongruenty between how they think they are and how everyone else thinks they are.




Just because existance might only be in our minds (or BE our minds) does NOT mean that it is not subject to determinism or causality.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4870298 - 10/30/05 11:15 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Then why do I not know the winning number for the next $53 million lottery jackpot? Why do I not know what everybody else is thinking (their thoughts are really my thoughts, aren't they)? Why do I not know Osama bin Laden's whereabout, so that I can end this evil war on terror? Why do I not know..., etc..., etc..., ad infinitum

What you are getting at, with the self-quote in your post, is that solipsism is absurd. Are you willing to admit this, that the kind of solipsism you adhere to is absurd? Such that we would have three types of solipsism:

SolipsismE
SolipsismM, and
SolipsismA, which equals SolipsismM + E.

Where SolipsismE is a problem of philosophy, SolipsismM is incoherent and contradictory, and SolipsismA is absurd; doesn't even bear any meaning or sense.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4870311 - 10/30/05 11:18 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Darcho said:
Then why do I not know the winning number for the next $53 million lottery jackpot? Why do I not know what everybody else is thinking (their thoughts are really my thoughts, aren't they)? Why do I not know Osama bin Laden's whereabout, so that I can end this evil war on terror? Why do I not know..., etc..., etc..., ad infinitum




Why should you know things that don't exist until they are observed? Solipsism states that nothing exists beyond one's own perception. I have not yet experienced telekinesis within my own perception, I don't know why. I don't claim to have any control over it.

I could also argue that absurdity is the true nature of existence.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: dr0mni]
    #4870327 - 10/30/05 11:23 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

A2) If you know your own mind, and your own mind is everything, then you know everything.

To know everything would be to have absolute knowledge. The concept of "omniscience" refers to this absolute knowledge.

A3) If you know your own mind, and your own mind is everything, then you are omniscient.

This is how you would be omniscient.




wow, you based your whole argument off of ONE assumption. That we know 100% of our own minds!

Can you remember every single detail of every single memory? Do you have a clear view of your unconscious conditioning? When you first took mushrooms, were doors not opened which you had no idea existed at all?

We DON'T know our own minds to the fullest extent possible, and that is why we go to therapy and eat psychedelic drugs. Perhaps when the Buddha (in legend) meditated to the highest level of consciousness he DID know his whole mind, and that is why he became omniscient of his past and future lives and all divine knowledge...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: dr0mni]
    #4872915 - 10/30/05 09:30 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

dr0mni said:
wow, you based your whole argument off of ONE assumption. That we know 100% of our own minds!

Can you remember every single detail of every single memory? Do you have a clear view of your unconscious conditioning? When you first took mushrooms, were doors not opened which you had no idea existed at all?

We DON'T know our own minds to the fullest extent possible, and that is why we go to therapy and eat psychedelic drugs. Perhaps when the Buddha (in legend) meditated to the highest level of consciousness he DID know his whole mind, and that is why he became omniscient of his past and future lives and all divine knowledge...




That is right, I did. It was actually a semi reductio ad absurdum in reply to "What if one can only know their own mind, which is all that exists?"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4872932 - 10/30/05 09:34 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

itstarssaddam said:
Why should you know things that don't exist until they are observed? Solipsism states that nothing exists beyond one's own perception. I have not yet experienced telekinesis within my own perception, I don't know why. I don't claim to have any control over it.

I could also argue that absurdity is the true nature of existence.




Idealism states that nothing exists beyond one's perception, extreme idealism; solipsism, states that nothing exists beyond your/my/somebody else's mind.

If all that exists is my mind, and I am aware that all existence is my mind, then there should be no limits to reality: if I can think it, then it exists; if I can think it, then I can will it to exists (it is my mind after all).

Edited by Darcho (10/30/05 09:54 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: dr0mni]
    #4872983 - 10/30/05 09:53 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

dr0mni said:
Keep in mind that you are defining HUMAN awareness. A human senses light via sight and reacts. This is evidence of consciousness, right? A fungus senses light (phototropism) and grows towards/away from it. The fungus senses stimuli and reacts to it. Is it not aware of the light despite the fact that it has no sensory organs or a nervous system? Is a fungus conscious? It has no brain yet it has the capability of awareness, albiet not the same kind of awareness that a human has.




It is a requirement for a conscious being to be aware, but it is not required for an aware being to be conscious.  A fungus may be photo-sensitive, and may therefore have a small degree of awareness of the world, but this does not entail consciousness, and it definitely does not entail self-awareness.

Quote:


How can we know that an amoeba swallowing another single-celled organism doesn't know what/that it is eating?




It doesn't have a brain.

Quote:


Good question! There is no sensory INput, yet there could still be neural activity. Patterns interacting within a structure designed for awareness. Perhaps this man would not have a sense of separateness from the world, but might only experiance pure, unadultered existence. No ego could be built from collective experiance. No duality could be his reality. How lucky is this man to be born into the divine oneness that we all stuggle for lifetimes to achieve!




There would be no neural activity in the cerebral cortex.  Any neural activity would be found in the limbic system and the brain stem, where automatic behaviour and control of internal functions is carried out.  There is no consciousness here.  The senseless man would have no awareness, and since awareness is required for consciousness, he would not be conscious.  He might as well be a rock.

Quote:


Could a rock not have a similar type of consciousness. Not of inner or outer, but of unity? There could be no ego or illusion. Senses often distort our perception of reality (unless perception IS reality). Perhaps a rock, devoid of convoluted senses, experiances reality as it truly is, while we are stuck inside this illusion, imagining that we are knowing more than the rock.:grin:




A rock probably would have a very similar type of consciousness as a senseless man: none.  You actually think a rock can experience?  What does it then mean to have "experience"?

Quote:


We define consciousness by the criteria of our OWN consciousness which is dominated by what we call sensory input. This does not mean that consciousness is always dependent upon sensory input.




Then you must adequately define and explain consciousness, and how it is possible for consciousness to coherently exist without awareness achieved by sensual stimulation.

Quote:

Okay, maybe you're right. I don't claim to know anything for sure. I wouldn't limit consciousness to brains, but instead to at least an organized sytem of specified complexity.

So we have this organized and dynamic system from which consciousness (however you want to define it) arises. But what is different about this system compared to others that gives it this property of consciousness? Does it have to do with the level of complexity or the manner in which it is organized?




The system must have three components: brain, body, and world.  Without one of these three, there is no consciousness.

Quote:

2) That the origin of consciousness arises from emergent patterns of a dynamic and organized system. Exploration of consciousness might be done through examining these patterns and determining at what level we can draw the line between consciousness and non-consciousness. What characteristics do conscious patterns have that make them so different?




No brain, body, or world -- no consciousness.  All three are required.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4874026 - 10/31/05 06:18 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

"A fungus may be photo-sensitive, and may therefore have a small degree of awareness of the world, but this does not entail consciousness, and it definitely does not entail self-awareness."

you're probably right, but how can we KNOW. We can't! We can't know what the awareness of a fungus is like and we can't make any assumptions about whether it is conscious or not, but we also can't exclude the possibility that it IS conscious.

You continue on this assumption that a brain is needed and that it must interact with an "outer" for consciousness to exist. But you forget that the brain has just self organized FROM the outer world (unless you believe in intelligent design).

I refuse to believe that a structure can be created which focuses a type of energy which was NOT present before it's creation. Even our most sophisticated nuclear reactors and lasers and particle accelorators are only MANIPULATING a force which already exists. It seems to me that this is all the brain is doing; working with what was already here in the first place.

for some reason dracho you want to believe that all conscious beings are conscious like you, but if we want to get to the truth we have to be able to accept the all the strangest possibilities of what consciousness MIGHT be like for beings other than ourselves.

My example of a fungus being aware without a brain apparently was insufficient in convincing you that there are other types of awareness than our own that might lead to consciousness. And honestly I don't really know where to go from there. All I can say is that if a simple organism like a fungus or bacteria could have a small level of awareness and these are NOT conscious on at least SOME level, then consciousness is apparently not dependent on awareness. I wouldn't say that I believe this to be true, but that seems to be the conclusion of our argument up to this point.

I don't blame you for dismissing solipsism, it's a whacky idea, but don't forget that human awareness comes with an ego through which the world is judged but that doesn't mean that the world is defined by our assumptions or our imaginations

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: dr0mni]
    #4874287 - 10/31/05 08:49 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Like I said, consciousness necessarily entails awareness, but awareness does not necessarily entail consciousness.

You seem to be treating consciousness as if it is some real, concrete thing. I think that it is wrong to do this, and it is a result of a sticky Cartesian residue.

I think in the end, all this shows is that the appeal to Occam's Razor, as a reason to accept solipsism, is inadequate.

Edited by Darcho (10/31/05 08:52 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4875335 - 10/31/05 01:39 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

and like I said, we can only be certain that human consciousness necessarily entails awareness. We can't know what other consciousness might be like (the only undeniable part of solipsism) and we honestly aren't even that certain about the nature of our own consciousness.

"You seem to be treating consciousness as if it is some real, concrete thing. I think that it is wrong to do this, and it is a result of a sticky Cartesian residue."

Well yeah, it's the only thing I know for sure. I've watched my friends head turn into sand and blow away in the wind with my eyes WIDE open while tripping, and I can tell you, the ONLY thing that I don't have a single doubt about is that my consciousness is "real"... whatever that might mean. Everything else is virtual as far as I'm concerned. That is the only Cartesian residue in my argument and I'll say again that I reject Cartesian duality.

... but wait a minute, are consciousness and awareness even seperate things at all? Or should we be using the word "sentience" instead of "consciousness"? Perhaps making a distinction between these two ideas will either make the discussion more progressive or more convoluted :confused:

I think that Occams razor is a piss-poor way to make a lot of unfounded assumptions. "Because it is the simplest explaination" is almost as bad as "because God did it!"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: dr0mni]
    #4875373 - 10/31/05 01:53 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Yeah, well, enter "The Problem of Consciousness."

Wittgenstein thought that most problems of philosophy were/are actually misusings of language. If you can use the language properly, then the problem will be realized as not actually being a problem, but simply a senseless set of questions/statements. I tend to agree with this.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Darcho]
    #4875690 - 10/31/05 03:26 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

yes, most definitely! I fancy myself to have a good command of the english language, but you can never predict all the nuances and associations that the other person might make that will fuck up what you are trying to get across.

So do you make a distinction between sentience and consciousness, because I do... and in a little while I'll post what I think that distinction is... lol!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #27006975 - 10/27/20 07:07 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

it stars saddam said:
Quote:

Darcho said:
I am not asking you why we have experience, so don't build another straw man.  You claim that sensation is "simply experience", but for the word 'experience' to be used in a coherent manner, there must be the corresponding "thing of experience."  So let us try again:  what is sensation an experience of?  Please do not build another straw man and avoid the question.




I suppose sensation is being as opposed to not being.  Without sensation, there is nothing, which is inconceivable to the conscious mind.  Stop moving completely for a moment, stop thinking, do not attempt to rationalize anything and just be still.  Your state of being at that time will be the only thing in existence from your perspective, to assume that anything else is existing will require faith.  I guess I can't give you a concrete answer because you are still presupposing that you are experiencing a "thing."  Why does this have to be so?  When you tear down the labels and rationalizations behind everything you'll find there is no longer any point of reference, and no coherency.  You are left with nothing but the sensation of your own isolated perception, with no clear source or meaning in sight.




This sounds more like Spirituality/Mysticism than Philosophy at this point. I mean from one's perspective in that moment a lot of stuff exists, I don't even see why a "thing" is a presupposition. If you start doubting that then Solipsism falls apart because then there is no "you"/mind/self, etc. Even isolated implies a "center" around which all this is happening, but where is the center? How do we know it exists? Like any other philosophy Solipsism has to presuppose a few things before it gets off the ground, though I would argue it requires a lot more than realism.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,242
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27007534 - 10/28/20 02:05 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
I may not be able to rule out the possibility but I can suggest that its probability is as likely as my next turd being gold.






Quote:

Property dualism is quite different – it states that the mind is fully a property of matter, but that it cannot be reduced to the the simple processes of the brain. There is some non-reducible aspect of consciousness that requires a separate (but physical) explanation other than neurons firing and exchanging neurotransmitters. It is astounding that Egnor would use the arguments of a property dualist to support his cartesian dualism – without ever making the distinction clear. Egnor uses a tactic well-known to his creationist buddies – mine for quotes that can be made to seem as if they support your position, when they don’t.

As we can see, Dr. Egnor is profoundly confused on multiple levels. He has confused different types of dualism, he has misrepresented Chalmers’ arguments and position, he has mischaracterized my position in multiple ways, he has confused philosophy and science, and he has confused different scientific questions – most notably the question of “does” the brain cause consciousness with the question of “how” the brain causes consciousness.

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/michael-egnor-cartesian-dualism-david-chalmers-and-the-hard-nonproblem/







--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLion
Decadent Flower Magnate
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/20/05
Posts: 8,775
Last seen: 15 days, 18 hours
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27007747 - 10/28/20 07:23 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Sirshovel said:
Quote:

it stars saddam said:
Quote:

Darcho said:
I am not asking you why we have experience, so don't build another straw man.  You claim that sensation is "simply experience", but for the word 'experience' to be used in a coherent manner, there must be the corresponding "thing of experience."  So let us try again:  what is sensation an experience of?  Please do not build another straw man and avoid the question.




I suppose sensation is being as opposed to not being.  Without sensation, there is nothing, which is inconceivable to the conscious mind.  Stop moving completely for a moment, stop thinking, do not attempt to rationalize anything and just be still.  Your state of being at that time will be the only thing in existence from your perspective, to assume that anything else is existing will require faith.  I guess I can't give you a concrete answer because you are still presupposing that you are experiencing a "thing."  Why does this have to be so?  When you tear down the labels and rationalizations behind everything you'll find there is no longer any point of reference, and no coherency.  You are left with nothing but the sensation of your own isolated perception, with no clear source or meaning in sight.




This sounds more like Spirituality/Mysticism than Philosophy at this point. I mean from one's perspective in that moment a lot of stuff exists, I don't even see why a "thing" is a presupposition. If you start doubting that then Solipsism falls apart because then there is no "you"/mind/self, etc. Even isolated implies a "center" around which all this is happening, but where is the center? How do we know it exists? Like any other philosophy Solipsism has to presuppose a few things before it gets off the ground, though I would argue it requires a lot more than realism.




I actually don't think solipsism has to presuppose too much. Dreams can be pretty complex, with many characters, vast scenery and movements, flight, fear, death - in short, lots of inputs that seem 'external' to the subject - and all of it turns out to be insubstantial and without independent reality. In the same way, all solipsism requires is that consciousness be a possibility, which it self-evidently is. Once we assume that there could be a primordial conscious, which is itself the only thing that exists, or which only exists because nothing exists, we can assume that it could hallucinate or dream and lose itself in form.

This is what is alluded to in some schools of Buddhism and Hinduism, the dream of forms and separate streams of consciousness, but in those traditions the forms encompass a gigantic universe with near-infinite perspectives that are all esoterically linked to one great whole. But what's to say that such a hallucination of consciousness could not take the form of just one individual human life that believes itself to be one among many, that wrongly believes there is a universe, history, and millions of births and deaths?

Whereas the Big Bang view of the universe requires multiple suppositions related to energy, matter, empty space, time and the eventual emergence of biological organisms and consciousness, solipsism really only requires primordial mind.

I've experienced intense solipsistic ideation and vision on psychedelics and become frighteningly suspicious for days and weeks after that I'm the creator of all of my experience, that every being and object around me was literally a dreamlike projection of my mind. I would not want to abide in that state indefinitely, I found it very groundless and terrifying.

But as the original poster argued 15 years ago, it doesn't seem possible to disprove solipsism. You can't disprove that you are in a dream of forms and that there is only one dreamer, a timeless primordial mind that 'exists' only in relation to the fact that nothing has ever existed or can truly exist.

At best you can just never come across this possibility and never consider it deeply, like most people, or, if you have considered it deeply, you can choose to move it to a dark periphery of your philosophical worldview in order to remain happy and functional.


--------------------
“Strengthened by contemplation and study,
I will not fear my passions like a coward.
My body I will give to pleasures,
to diversions that I’ve dreamed of,
to the most daring erotic desires,
to the lustful impulses of my blood, without
any fear at all, for whenever I will—
and I will have the will, strengthened
as I’ll be with contemplation and study—
at the crucial moments I’ll recover
my spirit as was before: ascetic.”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Lion]
    #27007957 - 10/28/20 09:34 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

It requires a lot more than that though. Unlike realism or the view that reality is as it appears, you are arguing that everything around you is not real or doesn’t exist. You are assuming it’s all fake which is a huge thing to assume, as well as assuming that you exist and so does consciousnesses. Self-evident to me is more akin to not questioning something. It also has to account for several other factors that an external reality easily explains, which undermines the claim that it’s supported by Occam’s Razor. I mean the primordial mind itself doesn’t explain the how or why or anything else, and it’s just an assumption. You say one can’t disprove it but the important point here is they can’t prove it either. They assume nothing else is real or exists which sounds like a leap to me and requires some pretty steep evidence for that claim. So while it appears that solipsism has the least assumptions it actually has far more than realism.

On the wiki it states that while it appears similar to Buddhism and Hinduism it isn’t and it’s a mistake often made. I don’t consider the dream argument a valid one for solipsism because you’d still have to answer as to where the material for the dream came from as well as how you know it’s a dream. The Incompleteness Theorems State that it’s impossible to prove a system from within a system so you can’t prove it’s a dream from inside the dream. Solipsism would have to be false to be known to be true. I don’t think the Big Bang requires several presuppositions, just one and that being the external reality.

But it’s not on me to prove my point it’s on the solipsist to do so. Same with a primordial mind. Philosophy doesn’t deal with proof, you pick your assumptions and go from there and personally I don’t see the assumptions of the solipsism and their conclusion as reasonable. They can’t even know they exist let alone get to remark to anything or anyone else. How do they even know the mind exists? Neuroscience is showing how much of what was taken to be the mind is really the brain, so much so that there isn’t anything for a mind to do if it were real. What if consciousness is an illusion too? Non-existence isn’t a property a thing can have however, not that I or anyone else can give a strong definition of it.

I found the original author’s arguments insufficient as they were more just “but what if” which I didn’t consider as strong as the counterpoints. I do concede that I can’t definitively say it’s false, no one can, but I now don’t regard it as a plausible explanation like the many other unprovable arguments. I see no reason to not think this reality isn’t external. Even if I did “wake” from it such an action would only prove the previous reality was false, it says nothing about my current reality or anything in it. The process is turtles all the way down as there will be no definite way to know if this is “it”.

Edit: Also simpler doesn’t mean truer. Following Occam’s Razor has led to wrong conclusions in the past. It’s a guideline not a rule. I also don’t think OP is correct to say that strict logic favors solipsism, I think it still favors an external reality. Also ones immediate perception still favors externality. IMO if one never heard of solipsism I don’t believe their first unfiltered evaluation would be that they are the only thing that is real.

Edited by Sirshovel (10/28/20 12:59 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLion
Decadent Flower Magnate
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/20/05
Posts: 8,775
Last seen: 15 days, 18 hours
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27009880 - 10/29/20 08:48 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

That's all well argued and I mostly agree. I definitely concede that it does not make sense to say solipsism is the simplest or most elegant, supposition-free formulation. It is actually just a strange perceptual conclusion that one could draw and then, if one obsessed over confirming or falsifying it, would likely lead to madness.

It's related to the hard problem of consciousness: how does consciousness emerge from matter, and how can we be certain that anything outside our field of perception is experiencing consciousness? I gather there is still a lot of debate in philosophy and science about whether it is possible to confirm that conscious awareness is occurring anywhere outside the locus of the body-mind as perceived through the aggregate senses.

Quote:

The Incompleteness Theorems State that it’s impossible to prove a system from within a system so you can’t prove it’s a dream from inside the dream.


Don't these theorems actually have a somewhat solipsistic bent? If no system can be proven from within it, would that not also apply to the universe and all physical laws to which we're subject? The solipsist can't prove that his perception and awareness is the only system in existence at the present moment, but he is in a way remaining within the bounds of the only directly confirmable system, that of conscious awareness and the appearance of sense perception, qualia etc.

Quote:

Solipsism would have to be false to be known to be true. I don’t think the Big Bang requires several presuppositions, just one and that being the external reality.


Doesn't the Big Bang require quite large suppositions about what preceded it? As well as downstream suppositions related to the above-mentioned hard problem?

I'm just thinking aloud, I mostly agree with your argument as you've presented it.


--------------------
“Strengthened by contemplation and study,
I will not fear my passions like a coward.
My body I will give to pleasures,
to diversions that I’ve dreamed of,
to the most daring erotic desires,
to the lustful impulses of my blood, without
any fear at all, for whenever I will—
and I will have the will, strengthened
as I’ll be with contemplation and study—
at the crucial moments I’ll recover
my spirit as was before: ascetic.”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Lion]
    #27009901 - 10/29/20 08:55 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

there are very few suppositions about what preceded a big bang as far as I know.

I get distracted by the container conundrum, i.e. what is the universe inside of??????


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Blind Ass
Bodhi
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 27,352
Loc: The Primordial Mind
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27009907 - 10/29/20 09:02 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

It may or may not be inside of anything.

Anywho.  I find it a sweet thing to ponder.  Headspace extravaganza!


--------------------
Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Lion]
    #27010619 - 10/29/20 03:09 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Actually incompleteness theorems says you can’t prove the truth of a system within the system. For solipsism to prove itself it would have to be false, meaning a reality apart and external to it.

I somewhat agree with OP in that just dismissing it is bad faith, but I disagree with the sentiment that letting it go or ignoring it or not believing it to be true is “comfort” or choosing ignorance. The problem is unsolvable. It’s fascinating to muse on for a while but at some point one needs to get on with life. But it does instill a sense of humility, so it’s not for nothing. Somethings can never be known I guess.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27011037 - 10/29/20 07:32 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Sirshovel said:
Actually incompleteness theorems says you can’t prove the truth of a system within the system. For solipsism to prove itself it would have to be false, meaning a reality apart and external to it.

I somewhat agree with OP in that just dismissing it is bad faith, but I disagree with the sentiment that letting it go or ignoring it or not believing it to be true is “comfort” or choosing ignorance. The problem is unsolvable. It’s fascinating to muse on for a while but at some point one needs to get on with life. But it does instill a sense of humility, so it’s not for nothing. Somethings can never be known I guess.



can you use that incompleteness argument to any success with the simulation theorists?


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines] * 1
    #27011082 - 10/29/20 08:13 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

The simulation theory is unfalsifiable and subject to the same principles as solipsism so yes. You can’t prove a simulation from within a simulation for obvious reasons.

Now if the theorists would listen, that’s another matter.

Either way it doesn’t matter.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27011546 - 10/30/20 06:15 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

true


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,242
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27011671 - 10/30/20 08:57 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Is there any problem in me saying that I know my mind is a biological construct and an entity greater than the sum of its parts?


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: sudly]
    #27011680 - 10/30/20 09:02 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

yes, the word greater in this case has no meaning or measurement scale, you would have to establish that or else it is just an attitude.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,242
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27011696 - 10/30/20 09:08 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Okay, what if I said I believe my mind is a biological construct made of this world.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: sudly]
    #27011813 - 10/30/20 10:23 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

I think it would sit ok. not a lot of info.
but what do you mean by that?
is it anything in particular or everybody should just fill in the blanks?


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,242
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27011840 - 10/30/20 10:43 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

It means I would make friends with people who have similar world views. There are of course differences, but at a foundational level it's important for me to communicate my beliefs.

It means I want to be friends with like minded people. Not people who take star signs seriously, hold polished crystals for energy, or call them selves a witch.

I am who I am and I like to mingle with people on the same page as I, at least on some level.

I like how I can take my time to coherently respond when online, and the people aren't a physical threat. In person I don't want to shatter people's deeply held beliefs.

What I've said about a biological mind is confrontational to a great deal of people in my experience, but saying it is a great filter, imo.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: sudly]
    #27011888 - 10/30/20 11:09 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

so it's a political meme for you. something to keep people divided into groups.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,242
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27012236 - 10/30/20 02:16 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

It's a way to make close friends and strong relationships.

I don't want to hang out with people who are racist, homophobic or convinced the planets determine the things that happen in their lives. That doesn't mean I can't be colloquial, it means that I don't respect their beliefs, and that I don't want to be the one to change them, or to convince them that something like evolution is real.

It means I'm happy for them to be an acquaintance, but it's more difficult to consider them a friend in my experience. It's like being friends with a creationist, I'd have to walk on egg shells as not to offend them, and I think it would be difficult to not get into a discussion on something like god.

That said, it works for some people, I know a guy who told me he'd catch fire if he ever stepped foot in a church, and low and behold his wife goes to church every week, sings in the choir and loves god.

They make it work, but in the end I personally tend to focus on the fundamental differences I have with people, if we do in fact have fundamental differences in beliefs. 

I enjoy meeting like minded people.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: sudly]
    #27012287 - 10/30/20 02:49 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:


I enjoy meeting like minded people.




probably true of most people

some journalists and anthropologists are exceptions

and of course some therapists and counselors are willing to help unpleasant people

and animal rescue folks are willing to help with some vicious animals

we vary in our abilities to tolerate both others and ourselves, as alcohol use shows.
And as this experiment shows.

People would rather be electrically shocked than left alone with their thoughts

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/people-would-rather-be-electrically-shocked-left-alone-their-thoughts

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Matthew+Killingsworth%2C+shocked+themselves&t=h_&ia=web

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: laughingdog]
    #27012390 - 10/30/20 04:11 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Maybe some folks but I quite enjoy the solitude, it's other people that pose a challenge.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27012414 - 10/30/20 04:27 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

shocking!


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,242
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27012489 - 10/30/20 05:12 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

One of my best friends was a pagan, I always thought he was a wack when he opened up, talking about telekinesis and whatnot, I just didn't get it.. but nowadays he's modernised.

There is a difference thought between thinking a stone will heal your kidneys and being racist. One of them is a silly notion, and the other it hate fuelled crud that can and has led to violence.

Haven't heard of many people attacking each other with vibes and chakra..


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: sudly]
    #27013359 - 10/31/20 06:49 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

lots of jinky vibe attacks daily in Canada, and my ex wife had infectious chakras, but you are right in most place of the world these are innocuous issues.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27015845 - 11/01/20 02:21 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

This seems to have gotten away from the original purpose, lol.

Anyway to quote the OP:

Quote:

I totally agree with you here. Unfortunately, when strict logic and one's individual, immediate perception suggest something, it moves out of the realm of "ad ignoratiam" as you put it.





I don't know about him by my individual immediate perception would not suggest solipsism, nor anyone else for that matter. I mean unless you took the time to question it that is. Sort of like when you're in a dream but don't know your dreaming but your immediate perception would not suggest that unless you practice lucid dreaming.

I'm not sure what is meant by strict logic here either. Occam's Razor would go with everything is as it appears and that's it. Not sure why there are a few arguments believing that Occam's supports it. But as has already been noted, Occam's Razor being passed doesn't make it true.

As much as I enjoy unsolvable problems this is the least fun of them, IMO.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBuster_Brown
L'une
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/17/11
Posts: 11,605
Last seen: 1 hour, 32 seconds
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27016189 - 11/01/20 06:29 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Sirshovel said:
This seems to have gotten away from the original purpose, lol.







Israel Regardie A garden of Pomegranates

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: it stars saddam]
    #27017536 - 11/02/20 01:31 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

it stars saddam said:
To all those that are quick to negate the philosophy that nothing exists outside of one's own perception, how can you possibly prove otherwise?  I've been racking my brain trying to find some way to make the principles of solipsism seem less blatantly obvious, but I'm at a loss here.

As Ravus pointed out in the first thread that I made on this topic, if you follow Occam's Razor very strictly, your end result will be solipsism.  It seems to me that this is a HUGE philosophical problem that has been brushed aside for the most part.  I would like to hear some others' thoughts on the matter.




.    The evidence against it is simple. Science at a high level, and math at a high level are frankly incomprehensible to most of us (99.9...%). Why and how would your brain hallucinate an entire world full of this stuff, when all your dreams are devoid of it?

.    In my opinion it is a philosophical question suitable for kids, who are just beginning to discover how the brain and thought can amuse themselves for awhile.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: laughingdog]
    #27017689 - 11/02/20 02:50 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

I think he overestimates the importance of the "problem". It has no solution and even if it were true it changes nothing. That's why folks brush it aside.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27026707 - 11/07/20 12:06 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

I'd also like to add a final point. I agree with a previous assessment in the thread that equating Metaphysical and Epistemological solipsism is not only absurd but impossible. It's either one or the other and Epistemological I can at LEAST see it's point (uncertainty) as opposed to the metaphysical (total certainty).

EDIT: Also I find the OP's definition of mind a little bit too broad to be useful.

Quote:

In solipsism, only the mind exists. It is important to note that the mind refers not to the brain, or one's ego perception, but the totality of all that you perceive, this includes all of the senses. What are the people around me other than images, sounds, and feelings?





Also the stance seems disingenuous:

Quote:

I admit that I do behave as if everything was real, but why not? Solipsism doesn't have a set of rules.





I mean it technically does have a set of rules. But if you claim to be a solipsist and behave as though everything is real one would question whether you actually are or not and consider your position absurd or hypocritical at least.

Quote:

I totally agree with you here. Unfortunately, when strict logic and one's individual, immediate perception suggest something, it moves out of the realm of "ad ignoratiam" as you put it.





To me this is still in the realm of argument from ignorance because I say that strict logic and one's immediate perception don't suggest solipsism at all. They suggest things are what they appear and nothing else. That and most of the replies from OP seem to be "well you don't know for sure".

Quote:

Any sensation, according to Solipsism, is purely a product of your own mind.




But then how do you both create and sense this without any prior experience? I mean we know this to be false from experience, you can't create something you have not felt before (in my case when I get shot or stabbed in my dreams).

Edited by Sirshovel (11/08/20 10:44 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27030501 - 11/09/20 04:45 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Sloppyism (and simulation theory as per other thread) is of course true on one level and not on another for all practical purposes.
True as everything we know and experience is a simulation in our brains.
Not true as same is true for everyone else ...
and just doing what we want results in consequences we don't like ....

the unibomber being an example, of consequences he didn't like, when others' rights were ignored.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLoaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 29 days, 13 hours
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: laughingdog]
    #27030947 - 11/10/20 12:35 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Solipsism is a rational contradiction at the metaphysical level, and thus all other assumptions derived from that point will also be flawed.


--------------------



"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,242
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Loaded Shaman]
    #27030979 - 11/10/20 01:19 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

The solopsist said,
Quote:

I am god! I am all that is to be, I am the centre of THE universe (not my own), and my imagination is what makes everything around me.






--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineskOsH
Functionally dysfunctional
 User Gallery


Registered: 07/03/19
Posts: 1,377
Loc: the PNW
Last seen: 1 month, 15 days
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: sudly]
    #27031037 - 11/10/20 03:58 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

I think it is all dangerous. As soon as someone thinks this way, they view others as just part of their imagination, and then they can decide who has humanity and who is dehumanized, and then they can enter a state of mind perfect for serial killing and whatnot, which has real consequences, in which, I guess you could argue that all of those consequences and what is happening are also figments of their imagination, but then what if this person is to be executed? I don't think the mind self destructs that easily , plus death cannot be an illusion of the mind, at that point the logic falls apart. Where does this mind go? The same one can be poked at and prodded by scientists, and sliced and diced so it's not like it can escape its own demise in that regard. In which case, all of that is simulated? Then...logically it follows to ask--where is the mind?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: skOsH]
    #27031083 - 11/10/20 05:29 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

that takes it to extremes: more of a manic approach to the fallacy, than a mere consideration of its possibility.

meanwhile solipsistic possibility is an important critical crack in the illusion of self that we can make from time to time; and it can be a self check, against slipping into mechanical disconnection from reality in the moment - which is a full body presence here and now.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,242
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27036444 - 11/13/20 06:27 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

That duel fire, that me and them. It's a difficult cycle to break, a face to face convo would be nice for some people who take such things as tarot cards to be meaningful.

I would like to be the arbiter in such situations.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: skOsH]
    #27037127 - 11/13/20 01:51 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

I can say that in the past I have teetered on that edge before to the point of near psychopathy. Lucky for me my restraint is pretty strong so I won't go that way hopefully, but it's hard sometimes. I can see how easy it would be to slip into that mentality having firsthand experience.

I also get the notion that I read something where someone proved solipsism was true.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLoaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 29 days, 13 hours
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27039748 - 11/15/20 12:21 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Sirshovel said:
I'd also like to add a final point. I agree with a previous assessment in the thread that equating Metaphysical and Epistemological solipsism is not only absurd but impossible. It's either one or the other and Epistemological I can at LEAST see it's point (uncertainty) as opposed to the metaphysical (total certainty).

EDIT: Also I find the OP's definition of mind a little bit too broad to be useful.

Quote:

In solipsism, only the mind exists. It is important to note that the mind refers not to the brain, or one's ego perception, but the totality of all that you perceive, this includes all of the senses. What are the people around me other than images, sounds, and feelings?





Also the stance seems disingenuous:

Quote:

I admit that I do behave as if everything was real, but why not? Solipsism doesn't have a set of rules.





I mean it technically does have a set of rules. But if you claim to be a solipsist and behave as though everything is real one would question whether you actually are or not and consider your position absurd or hypocritical at least.

Quote:

I totally agree with you here. Unfortunately, when strict logic and one's individual, immediate perception suggest something, it moves out of the realm of "ad ignoratiam" as you put it.





To me this is still in the realm of argument from ignorance because I say that strict logic and one's immediate perception don't suggest solipsism at all. They suggest things are what they appear and nothing else. That and most of the replies from OP seem to be "well you don't know for sure".

Quote:

Any sensation, according to Solipsism, is purely a product of your own mind.




But then how do you both create and sense this without any prior experience? I mean we know this to be false from experience, you can't create something you have not felt before (in my case when I get shot or stabbed in my dreams).




What is man?

Can you answer this in a rational (conceptually consistent, non-contradictory) fashion?

If not, everything from there is going to be flawed assumption.

You already have a big one at the start of your post here, can you spot it (not trolling you genuinely trying to help!)?


--------------------



"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Loaded Shaman]
    #27043080 - 11/16/20 10:20 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

I don't see an issue. There are two variants of solipsism and trying to equate or exchange between the two of them is fallacious and dishonest. They are two mutually exclusive stances on the external reality. One is flat out NO, nothing else exists. The other says it is uncertain whether there is or is not anything else.

I still maintain that OP is not a solipsist if they behave that everything is real. IF they did then their position would be absurd and IMO belongs in mysticism and spirituality, not PSP.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLoaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 29 days, 13 hours
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27043170 - 11/17/20 12:57 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Alright you muthafuckas, let's at least establish a goddamn baseline of definitions here so we're all on the same page:

Is this thread positing that nothing outside of YOUR BIOLOGICAL BRAIN/MIND exists, nothing outside YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS EXISTS, or are we conflating and combining the two?

That's the first problem.

You can't be given answers that will make sense regarding breaking down solipsism if you're operating on the assumption that it means BRAIN ONLY, and consciousness isn't a factor, and we start talking about it from the consciousness angle. OR are you guys assuming mind/brain/consciousness are one thing? This does make a huge difference guys.


Vice versa, folks.

I'm getting absolutely hammered with PMs by several members asking me the same question, and then ignoring/arguing that my answer isn't what they want to hear, because it doesn't contradict, lol.

Where does everyone stand on this because the premise is fucking vital and all I see in these threads are people moving goal posts because they don't have a premise they even comprehend fully to begin with.

Let's do this correctly lads:

  • Who here is positing that all of reality is an illusion?

  • Who here is positing that nothing outside of the observer's consciousness exists?

  • Who here is positing that nothing outside the observer's mind exists?


If half of use are combining mind and consciousness, and half are doing their own thing, it's no wonder why people aren't getting anywhere.

Someone step up organize a non-contradictory claim on solipsism from one of the above without having one foot on first trying to steal second, if that makes sense.


--------------------



"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLoaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 29 days, 13 hours
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27043184 - 11/17/20 01:16 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Sirshovel said:
I don't see an issue. There are two variants of solipsism and trying to equate or exchange between the two of them is fallacious and dishonest. They are two mutually exclusive stances on the external reality. One is flat out NO, nothing else exists. The other says it is uncertain whether there is or is not anything else.

I still maintain that OP is not a solipsist if they behave that everything is real. IF they did then their position would be absurd and IMO belongs in mysticism and spirituality, not PSP.




Again, Sirshovel; it's not surprising you're not seeing why contradiction is a huge issue, you're accepting a handful of them by already insisting there's more than one type of solipsism, lol.

Solipsism is already an issue; what you're saying here is you don't actually have an absolute, non-contradictory working definition for solipsism, which is why you are suffering existential death by a thousand paper cuts; you're allowing contradiction as an explanation all over the place bro.

"Two different types of solipsism" is like saying "Two types of infinity".

So...infinity? Do you not see an issue with your claim?

You're parsing the same concepts into two and treating them as two different halves. This is like having two half glasses of water, instead of one full glass, and claiming the water is different because you can separate it.

This is dangerous thinking and exactly what I rant and rave about.

This is why you're experiencing the inability to see how simple this is my man; this is not me being condescending after a point IDK how much more clear I can explain the difference between what you claim you're saying, and what you're actually claiming, whether you realize it or not.

People are like computers: they intellectually assume data is correct, and get an output, never taking into account that the inputs are loaded with fallacies, and so too will be any and all output derived from that function.

...And that's the problem with these threads, and precisely what I tried to outline in my post above: everyone is working from different existential assumptions, usually contradictory, because you guys ignore metaphysic and act like it doesn't matter, then wonder why you get logically stuck at the impasse of solipsism, while also insisting contradiction is just an opinion and equally as valid as accepting it as an explanation for phenomena experienced, lmao.

Please answer my above post and let's establish some actual concrete working definitions to start picking this shit apart in a non-contradictory, rational and reasonable (conceptual consistency, otherwise why are we even using words/language/mouth noise symbols and claiming they have meaning).


--------------------



"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLoaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 29 days, 13 hours
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27043190 - 11/17/20 01:21 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Here's a fun list of rational contradictions people have been PMing me with and attempting to argue aren't contradictions, then get pissed when they can't figure out the answer to the problem they're creating for themselves philosophically, because they allow contradiction into their factoring:

  • Government exists to protect private property, and it obtains the resources to do so through the tax code, which takes one’s private property by force.  This is thought to be not only completely rational but many times a moral necessity!

  • God is infinite and man is finite.  This means hat the finite and the infinite co-exist.  In other words, what is infinite stops where finite begins.  In other words, “limited infinity” is a thing (you were treading dangerously close to this logic in your post above about "two types of solipsism", Sirshovel).

  • Time and space were created at the Big Bang. In other words, the Big Bang never actually happened, since it has neither a location nor an instant.

  • Space is a vacuum.  Wormholes are holes in space.  In other words, there are physicists seriously considering the reality of holes inside another hole.

  • We often hear the phrase “beginning of time”.  Of course, time is the beginning.  In other words, there is such a thing as the beginning of the beginning.

  • Atheists don’t believe in God, and assert that the concept of God is completely irrational whilst simultaneously appealing to omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinite, untouchable, transcendent powers called the “Laws of Physics” which are invisible as distinct from the objects they supposedly control and create.  In other words, atheism is polytheism, soon to be monotheism once the geniuses at MIT and Cambridge get around to discovering the “answer to everything.”

  • Scientists claim that the observer is a function of what he observers.  In other words, the observer observes himself from outside himself (approaching solipsism from the other side!).

  • -Consciousness is a direct function of unconsciousness (categorically unconscious natural law).  In other words, consciousness is an “illusion”…which in this case is a euphemism for “doesn’t actually exist”.  So what exactly is it an illusion of (this one is a blast to get people going on)?

  • It is true to claim that absolute truth cannot be known, and that the inability of man to truly know anything absolutely is intellectually and morally meaningful to him.  In other words, its very important to know that you can’t know.

  • Einstein’s theory of time travel implies that such travel is both to the future and the past,  depending ENTIRELY on the observer, making time travel so completely relative that it becomes functionally meaningless.  In other words, time travel is both possible and ABSOLUTELY irrelevant…which is to say, possible and impossible.


Keep it going.


--------------------



"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Loaded Shaman]
    #27043975 - 11/17/20 02:34 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

So from what I get by your posting style you vomit out your points, call everyone else wrong, and then block them from responding to you in PMs?

There seems to be a lot of mistakes in your reasoning to unpack. 

But to put it one way, yes there are two types of solipsism. One is the Metaphysical solipsism which asserts that nothing besides you exists. The other is epistemological solipsism which is just uncertainty. I'm not parsing anything this is literally the two variations on solipsism. One is the extreme end and the other is just plain uncertainty. Either accept that or don't but don't accuse someone of this when they are just stating the facts.

Most of your contradictions are not really contradictions at all, more like a lack of understanding. In terms of science and observations that is called the observer effect, meaning that any measurement of a system is going to change that system (it's a sad but true fact of any endeavor). In QM it's a little different. Also space is a vacuum yes but it's not exactly empty and a wormhole is not a hole in the strict sense of the term, it just appears that way from our view of space. I don't see a contradiction with "the beginning of a beginning".

It seems like you're trying to take the strangeness and mystery of existence and trying to impose what you think is right on it rather than observing. As far as I know we live in a deterministic universe and as for the first cause it's likely we may never know. When it comes to QM a lot of stuff there defies our ability to reason and make sense of it, hence why you get so many interpretations. I mean things there are BOTH particles and waves, something thought to be impossible before hand. Particles even appear from nothing, absolutely nothing. Cause and effect and exist independent of each other as separate entities. It's batty but fun. But this is getting off topic.

I saw a VERY curious answer in regards to "before the big bang", needles to say it's quite mind bending but in short it proves that a universe can not have time, or more than one time, but that time is a property of our universe. In some cases you can have universes were effects precede causes or have no cause whatsoever. Any "before the big bang" is outside our universe and the question itself has no meaning. I'm pretty sure I'm not doing it justice but it just shows how existence defies our intuition about what it ought to be.

From my view everyone seems to be having an understanding of what solipsism is. Though the issue here seems to be the metaphysical version, which states that your mind/consciousness or whatever is the only thing that exists and either nothing else exists or is an extension of you. This variation I think is absurd, but again I can't prove it wrong (or right). Stop splitting hairs and being argumentative. We've stated our points and what we feel about it, but ultimately the only thing we can say is we don't know. So folks either believe it or not.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,300
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27044056 - 11/17/20 03:29 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

There are two types of solipsistic thought. One states that there is no outside world which is flawed reasoning. The other is epistemological and states that we cannot be (absolutely) certain there is no outside world. This is a reasonable position.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." - Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Rahz]
    #27044243 - 11/17/20 04:59 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

I'm not sure if that's a direct quote or not. But yeah, that's pretty much the two camps for it. Metaphysical is absurd to me for a number of reasons but the Epistemological version is hard to argue with. That one says that our own mind is the only thing we can know with certainty. Existence or lack thereof of anything else is uncertain and there is no way to know. Seems more honest to me.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,300
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27044526 - 11/17/20 08:12 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Yes, the epistemological argument does contain sound logic but reaches no conclusions except for the absence of surety. And yet it's not even something of real consequence for the vast majority of people.

So for me the obvious question is, what is the utility of solipsism? The parameters are well covered, but of what use is it? Does it even need a use and is purely a thought exercise, or is there some application which might make a person appreciate the concept?


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." - Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Rahz]
    #27044925 - 11/18/20 06:28 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

it is a valid starting premise, a position that can lead to a series of excellent experimental explorations of the universe that is ourselves.
eventually evidence will clarify what parts of the starting premise have lasting value for anything other than a starting premise. (i.e. great for classes about thinking and philosophy)


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: Flag
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27044983 - 11/18/20 07:26 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Metaphysical solipsism sounds like an iteration of self worship.  I am a brain in a vat you are all very convincing manifestations of AI that I ultimately create for my amusement and growth.  I would never call you on this because I know it wouldn’t be received well so I act as if you have autonomy and are real. 

Theism has it’s applications.  I derive a sense of comfort knowing this is all by and for me.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27045035 - 11/18/20 08:01 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Good for you!

this is like the whole hypotenuse and right angle triangle thing in geometry. it is one of the first things to learn and acclimate to. Imagine the squares of the lengths of the other two sides always equal the hypotenuse's length!!!
it is so exciting that the mind can discover and share such a gem of insight!
This geometric theorem can be used to build the pyramids, but it is not the whole story for  2-d geometry. then there is 3-d and more, black holes, dark matter, the mysteries of gravity and time...
Some people don't get the hypotenuse, others may feel it is the most important thing they can ever learn.

In my opinion, solipsism is like that. it highlights the paradigm of mind which can project as well as perceive.

take comfort in your hypotenustic philosophical blanket.



--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,300
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27045235 - 11/18/20 10:10 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Yellow Pants said:
Metaphysical solipsism sounds like an iteration of self worship.




Maybe I am wrong but I don't think it was ever meant to be taken seriously. It's highly assumptive whereas epistemological solipsism is the opposite and is careful not to make assumptions. For me that is the utility, to not be so sure of a thing that it is not examined closely.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." - Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: Flag
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Rahz]
    #27045272 - 11/18/20 10:28 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Yeah it feels pretty strange to try on.  I have to simultaneously give you your due while inside I know you’re the illusion for my own sake from myself.  I basically have to make a god out of myself.

So it strikes me as egotistical.  Because the all encompassing self is really “me” where my ego is the one true representative of this great being and all y’all are illusion. 

Edited by Yellow Pants (11/18/20 10:36 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27045301 - 11/18/20 10:39 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

This subject is where I love my friend, common sense. Did God put all of these sense impressions out there all for you, and reality is your personal experiment, or is reality real?

Also, if you entertain certain aspects of basic telepathy, (which doesn't necessarily require anything mystical), how does that sit with solipsism?

(I have experienced telepathic phenomena several times on psychs, and all it requires is for the brainwaves to synch up between two people who are very high. There are other forms of telepathy, but the electromagnetic phenomenon is acknowledged by lots of people).


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,300
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27045314 - 11/18/20 10:43 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Yes, but as this god you've placed all these constraints on yourself, can't fly without assistance or make hamburgers magically appear for example. And, you've thrown away the key to your omnipotence and have to live the same life as these human creations you've manifested in your dream. So there could be a non-egotistical side to it but I get your meaning.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." - Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #27045330 - 11/18/20 10:51 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Common sense seems like the way to go here, even though I don’t think it’s exactly philosophically sound. To me the most simple explanation is that everything is as it appears and nothing more: no figments, no p-zombies, no creating my world. Not really sure why people say Solipsism is what you get from Occam’s razor, from my view extreme doubt is the opposite of the razor (also the razor only applies to falsifiable theories so we’re out of luck here).

But solipsism is a dead end. It’s not a starting point so much as an end because nothing follows from it. It has no utility. I mean the epistemological variant is honest I will say but then the question becomes “so what”? I mean if I concede it is uncertain where exactly does that leave me? What good does it do? Nothing around me changes if I believe it to be a part of me and unlike a dream I am not god here. Seems like just adding an unfalsifiable meta-narrative for its own sake.

The problem I have with the god narrative is that it renders the argument unnecessary. If you were all powerful you could just make yourself not be bored and all this would be unnecessary.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27045468 - 11/18/20 12:25 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

I could use a hamburger right now.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: Flag
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27045488 - 11/18/20 12:38 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Wouldn’t self limitation be of interest due to omnipotence becoming lame?  Ultimately it would be preferable to find a cow and harvest its meaty parts while learning valuable lessons and experiences.  Or you know dominate the species entirely raise in mass and shovel the burgers down the assembly line and into mouths.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27045528 - 11/18/20 01:13 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Then why not just make yourself not be bored and not go through all of that? I mean...if one truly were god and all powerful then one could do that.

I also find it silly that one would make them make all this stuff, forget, and then leave in the world itself any way of realizing the fact they made it all and thereby ruin the purpose of forgetting to begin with.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: Flag
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27045729 - 11/18/20 03:11 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Would if you viewed existence as a joke?  Silliness as apt then.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27045752 - 11/18/20 03:22 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Yellow Pants said:
Would if you viewed existence as a joke?  Silliness as apt then.




Why would you view it as a joke though? It still doesn't explain why an all powerful being that made everything from nothing (hard to believe) because they were bored (still harder to justify) rather than simply magic away boredom? Why over complicate things like that or better yet why to begin with? I mean aren't we also assuming that such a being is like us in any way? Still sounds like overcomplicating things to me.

Reminds me somewhat of this quote from another thread:

Quote:

"The distinction between the realist universe and the unconscious universe collapses when one notes that external and unconscious are simply two different words used to describe the same events occurring outside of conscious control. This leads to the conclusion that the unconscious is, for all practical purposes, someone else."

I thought this was one of the most interesting ideas in the whole article.

The unconscious mind is always talked about as being totally separate from our external reality (the ego and the id). Okay, but if I take a moment and totally stop acknowledging myself and my ego, I've broken free and entered the unconscious, but I'm still there, "I" as in the body that I normally inhabit and do stuff with. This is very hard for me to try and explain what I am trying to say with words, but the above quote explains it pretty well.

If my personal experience is the totality of all of my mental processes, where is my unconscious mind functioning at? Or am I someone else completely?




Though the problem I have with this is that it assumes one enters the unconscious when they don't. By definition you can't be aware of it. I also doubt that there is an unconscious on the level of Freud and Jung, let alone one that made all this stuff and the people in it from (again) nothing. I mean in my dreams I know I can't experience something I never felt before and everything I see I saw in reality. I'd also have to prove the existence of some force I am not aware of making all this. But then there comes the follow up question that such an unconscious that I am not aware of nor control would effectively be external to me, so then there is no reason to invoke the unconscious over realism if according to the OP there is no difference. It's still just another unfalsifiable layer.

Granted this is all very interesting, but I'm getting the sinking feeling that all we can really do is just throw words around but we won't really get anywhere let alone prove anything, because we can't. Literally every argument is just based on "maybe" or "how can we know" or "what if", but that's all it is like any metaphysical claim an IF. We're just chasing our tails here because the theory can't be tested so invoking Occam does nothing.

Ugh, I need  drink, or maybe chocolate.

EDIT: I'd also like to add why faith is such a dirty word in philosophy. I mean all philosophy starts with a series of assumptions based on faith after all.

Edited by Sirshovel (11/18/20 03:24 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27045930 - 11/18/20 05:01 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

it stars saddam said:
To all those that are quick to negate the philosophy that nothing exists outside of one's own perception, how can you possibly prove otherwise? ...





.  What I expect is that, what can be shown is that those, who claim to believe in such nonsense, are just as selfish as most everyone else; that is, if anyone really cared enough to prove that it is a useless philosophy, as far as liberating anyone, from selfishness. This is why trying to "prove otherwise", is unnecessary.

.  Which is obviously why those interested in waking up or liberation, or any of the benefits of being on a real path, employ other methods, than simply endorsing odd beliefs. Again this is why trying to "prove otherwise", is considered unnecessary, by all who aren't engaged in philosophical masturbation, or feeding trolls.

.  This is so obvious, that there is no need to embellish the point,  hoping to restate it in some supposedly perfect form.

.  There seems to be a lot of garbage in life that perhaps "can't be proven otherwise" that the wise simply tiptoe around.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: laughingdog]
    #27046133 - 11/18/20 06:54 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

By point though is why would we need to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, which tends to be why the epistemological solipsists don't say it either way because it's uncertain.

A couple threads say it's on the ones against solipsism to provide the burden of proof, but that is not true. The burden rests on those making a claim and in this case it's solipsism. Lack of proof for the other side is not positive proof for yours.

EDIT:
Quote:

How can you seperate the inner and outer region? EVERYTHING is sensation, no exceptions.





Sensation implies there is something outside of you that is being sense. Even consciousness to me implies there is something you are conscious off. So even if everything were sensation that seems like a moot point, I mean it obviously is. That still doesn't really support solipsism, it's like saying water is wet, it adds nothing. If anything it supports realism a little because it implies there is something outside of us that we are picking up.

Edited by Sirshovel (11/19/20 12:05 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27046685 - 11/19/20 01:59 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Sirshovel said:
By point though is why would we need to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, ....





.  Yes and 2ndly its a useless theory, (unless you write Sci-fi) or use it as a metaphor, not to get overly serious about life.
.  Of course all we directly experience of reality is only what is modeled in our brains, often based only on limited & crude sense data, but that does not mean that there is no external world.

.  However as a deep philosophical truth or outlook, that one should embrace and hope to get useful insight from, it has been found to be useless for as long as its been around. (Which is probably thousands of years.) It is of interest mainly to those have just realized they can have philosophical thoughts, and to whom it therefore feels new, fresh, and exciting.

.  In fact a psychoanalytic theory could be that the secret motivation, behind the idea that the world is an illusion, as well as the body itself ** is that if true it would do away with the fear of dying that many have. So here we have a nice twist on the theory which turns on its head the notion, that those who hold this view are the ones who see more clearly. This theory suggests that those who hold such views are actually out of touch with, or unconscious of, both their deeper feelings and motivations. I'm not a fan of psychoanalysis, but in this instance find the logic amusing.

. In the world of science perhaps string theory is similar in having attracted a lot of excitement when it was new, but as there was more and more realization that it is an untestable hypothesis, it is taken less seriously by many now.

.  This is only my view, I'm sure many will continue to take some interest in debating the idea, just as string theory still continues to be a source of grant money for some academics. In many ways I'm perhaps often, just an observer.

** from wiki
"Solipsism (/ˈsɒlɪpsɪzəm/ (About this soundlisten); from Latin solus 'alone', and ipse 'self')[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: laughingdog]
    #27046753 - 11/19/20 05:17 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

a part of solipsism is true in all cases, since all sensations and thoughts occur in the mind.
that part is true.
determining contextual meaning of sensations and idea fragments is a primary mental activity.

creating the universe, however, seems a multi-billion year process of transformation and evolution, and the product of that is what we experience.

unless we are each billions of years old I think that the solipsistic path of creation is unlikely.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: Flag
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27046883 - 11/19/20 08:18 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Yet the metaphysical solipsist will ride into the sunset on a golden horse.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27046924 - 11/19/20 08:44 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

more likely rides into a reef on a spazdick sea horse


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: Flag
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27046940 - 11/19/20 08:57 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

The good ones know to keep the secret to themselves.  They give you your due.  So it is probably an average looking horse in order to remain low key.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27047187 - 11/19/20 11:25 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

How do all sensations occur in the mind? The solipsist would say that it is made by the mind but I know this is not true for a few reasons. I can’t feel something in my dreams I haven’t experienced in reality.

But a metaphysical solipsist would have no choice but to keep it to themselves. As a theory it is pointless to communicate. Even if they say they are “playing the game” that is an absurd position. You are essentially saying I don’t exist or am not real but are still talking to me like I am. Sounds like the height of insanity to me.

Sort of why I think there are no true solipsists.

Edited by Sirshovel (11/19/20 11:29 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27047506 - 11/19/20 03:00 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

if you touch something with your finger. the sensation arrives via nerves in your brain: in your mind it becomes linked with all the other contemporaneous objects active in the mind - this forms an engram (a unit of memory in our brain).

it all happens in the brain even though we do get continuous telemetry about the world from our bodys' senses and from our memories. 

If you lose that finger or lose your whole arm, chances are you will experience phantom limb pains or sensations independent of any sensory nerve  activation - entirely in the mind. This is documented and seems to be true, and at least somewhat corroborative to the fact that we experience our senses in our mind which copies all the input from our body and the world - and - that in absence of actual stimuli, our brain can manufacture a reasonable facsimile internally.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27047951 - 11/19/20 07:25 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
if you touch something with your finger. the sensation arrives via nerves in your brain: in your mind it becomes linked with all the other contemporaneous objects active in the mind - this forms an engram (a unit of memory in our brain).

it all happens in the brain even though we do get continuous telemetry about the world from our bodys' senses and from our memories. 

If you lose that finger or lose your whole arm, chances are you will experience phantom limb pains or sensations independent of any sensory nerve  activation - entirely in the mind. This is documented and seems to be true, and at least somewhat corroborative to the fact that we experience our senses in our mind which copies all the input from our body and the world - and - that in absence of actual stimuli, our brain can manufacture a reasonable facsimile internally.




But that seems different than suggesting that without sensation there is nothing:

Quote:

I suppose sensation is being as opposed to not being. Without sensation, there is nothing, which is inconceivable to the conscious mind. Stop moving completely for a moment, stop thinking, do not attempt to rationalize anything and just be still. Your state of being at that time will be the only thing in existence from your perspective, to assume that anything else is existing will require faith. I guess I can't give you a concrete answer because you are still presupposing that you are experiencing a "thing." Why does this have to be so? When you tear down the labels and rationalizations behind everything you'll find there is no longer any point of reference, and no coherency. You are left with nothing but the sensation of your own isolated perception, with no clear source or meaning in sight.




Like the OP said. Also you still need something to work with, it can't just magic it from nothing.

Though one has to take existence to be primary: https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/5238387

And there is always the problem that you can't verify a system from within that system: https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/13420577

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleFerdinando
Male

Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 3,695
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27048264 - 11/20/20 01:28 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

it's about what you touch rith :rasta:

it is much better for me to draw than do wath tv


--------------------
with our love with our love we could save the world

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Ferdinando]
    #27049024 - 11/20/20 02:06 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

I....don’t know what you mean.

I suppose presupposing a thing is....well I don’t know how to respond to that.

Though each day I live I see little or no difference between solipsism being true or false.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27050772 - 11/21/20 05:07 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Someone emailed me the link to this post, and I just wanted to make a small comment on it before we all continue on our ways.

People argue that solipsism is useless and obviously false because it would mean that you're talking to yourself (as if that makes the experience any different). They say it "degrades" other people, that it's an obviously illogical philosophy because it would somehow assert "you" over "them".

In vivid dreams I've had, people have had strong arguments. I've had pity for others in the dream, argued with them, fought with them, even mourned for them, all with the pure conviction that these people were real. Yet in the morning I would wake up and realize that the arguments people made for their own existence said nothing about the truth of solipsism itself.

Solipsism is the simplest explanation not because it takes dissent out of the picture, as it does not; dissent remains the same, and people will still argue against you, as they would in a dream. The true source of solipsism springs from the fact that we never verify someone else's consciousness or thoughts as an actual experience. In a dream, they all appear to have their own consciousness and thoughts, but actually they are just two-dimensional actors in a temporary play, and no matter how convincing they are, the emotional convictions we experience in a dream in no way make the people in the dream real.

Yet somehow, as soon as people wake up and turn off their alarm clock, they believe the experience shifts radically. Of course you're the only person in the dream, but this is now, and we have logic and thoughts, right? But we come back to the same point we were at in a dream; we are only acting on our subjective emotional conviction, and not any actual evidence. One could theoretically create artifical intelligence that mimicked human intelligence, emotions and thoughts, even arguing aptly for its own consciousness and vehemently denying solipsism, without actually being real.

All philosophies that assume others have consciousness, emotions or experience rely on leaps of faith, assumptions and emotional convictions. This is, of course, more than good enough for most people; they try to logically justify it, always ignoring the persistent fact that they can never actually know whether anyone else has consciousness because they can never experience it, and in fact their own experience has taught them that, in a postmodern sense, there is no difference between "real consciousness" (if such a thing exists) and a mimicking character in a dream.

So before you think that just because "college freshmen joke about solipsism" that it is ridiculous and lacking evidence, perhaps you should try waking up and seeing if the college freshmen are even there. Indeed, there is no way to know, so based on our experience and Occam's razor, what is the more logical philosophy here? Just as one shouldn't be so quick to be defeated by illusions in a dream, one should also question this waking dream we experience everyday and try thinking about what we actually know about the actors that would be the first to silence our questions.




I just wanted to remark on the above from earlier in this post. Some would use dreams as an argument in favor of solipsism. But to me this still doesn't answer the question of where did all the material in your dreams came from. Not to mention that if you did make all this, as in a dream, there should be no limit to what you can do in reality, and yet there is. Also this argument is not convincing because often times you don't know you are dreaming and you only realize it is a dream because you wake from it. So far I always come back to this reality no matter what experience I have and I don't control a whole lot of stuff that goes on here so the dream argument seems a little weak to me.

Also the person is misusing Occam's Razor and thinking it leads to solipsism. Rather Occam's Razor is a tool to decide between two competing hypothesis and deciding which to test. It is NOT an indication of the truth of a statement. If it was then magicians on the street would be real live wizards rather than exploiting our dependence on Occam's Razor. The Razor is also not an argument, it's a tool. It's not evidence. Even then it would still point to the simplest explanation: that everything is as it appears with no hidden metaphysical anything behind it all.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27050968 - 11/21/20 06:47 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

When I remember my dreams, I get a few frames of scenes, and the feelings of motion and conversation are connected to those frames.

If I explore the dream frames or revisit them they are like tableaux or freeze frames. Attached to the scenes may be a residual sense that action has just occurred in a story. I can seem to open or unfold parts of the scene  or rebuild the movement while sinking further into the dream, I can go someplace else at will in the dream sometimes, but it is not by smooth motion even if it feels fantastically smooth (often flying or skating down staircases)- that feeling is mixed with jump cut scenes, and conversations that have happened.

In waking reality, there is a strong continuity to a timeline as I move around in scenes that evenly unfold, without jump cuts or origami but not so in dreams, the rules of dreamland are different than those of the waking world.

Unlike dreams solipsism is a kind of egomania, but it can be turned into a practice of awareness and things can come out fine even if they are somewhat wrong. Nobody seems entirely right after all. Basically if solipsism does not lead to deeper examination of what is happening on an ongoing basis, then it is a waste of time.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGrapefruit
Freak in the forest
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 5,744
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27050997 - 11/21/20 07:01 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Sounds like it's a waste of time full stop to me, but ideas are always interesting and they can lead to connections leading to deeper understanding of the overall environment. So I think it's worth considering solipsim briefly. But as a creed to live your life by? Hard pass on that.


--------------------
Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. 

"Chat your fraff
Chat your fraff
Just chat your fraff
Chat your fraff"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27051233 - 11/21/20 09:59 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

I get all that but this:

Quote:

People argue that solipsism is useless and obviously false because it would mean that you're talking to yourself (as if that makes the experience any different). They say it "degrades" other people, that it's an obviously illogical philosophy because it would somehow assert "you" over "them".

In vivid dreams I've had, people have had strong arguments. I've had pity for others in the dream, argued with them, fought with them, even mourned for them, all with the pure conviction that these people were real. Yet in the morning I would wake up and realize that the arguments people made for their own existence said nothing about the truth of solipsism itself.




Still seems to agree with my point about how you don't know you are dreaming until you wake so you treat it as real.

From the thousands of pages I have read on solipsism the argument is the same for each one, you never know. That's really what it boils down to. So it's kind of useless.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLoaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 29 days, 13 hours
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27051433 - 11/22/20 01:45 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Because you have an incomplete metaphysic, appear to not comprehend how important this is to the topic at hand, and continue arguing my points bro lol.

You're performing the metaphysical equivalent of attempting to measure distance with colors, then wondering why you're hitting an impasse.


--------------------



"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGrapefruit
Freak in the forest
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 5,744
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Loaded Shaman] * 1
    #27051802 - 11/22/20 09:34 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

You're performing the metaphysical equivalent of attempting to measure distance with colors




The hell does this mean? I would think someone with a complete metaphysic would attempt to be a little clearer. :lol:


--------------------
Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. 

"Chat your fraff
Chat your fraff
Just chat your fraff
Chat your fraff"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Grapefruit]
    #27051909 - 11/22/20 10:33 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

functional metaphysics are never complete.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBig_Dub
I'm just some guy
Male


Registered: 01/12/11
Posts: 2,736
Loc: Los Angeles Flag
Last seen: 1 day, 18 hours
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27051913 - 11/22/20 10:36 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

hate to break it to everybody, but.....
I am the solipsist


--------------------
split_by_nine said:
click me you fuck


do the right thing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Big_Dub]
    #27051968 - 11/22/20 11:00 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

shall we begin the lobbying now?
I want a pony.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Loaded Shaman]
    #27052095 - 11/22/20 12:29 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Loaded Shaman said:
Because you have an incomplete metaphysic, appear to not comprehend how important this is to the topic at hand, and continue arguing my points bro lol.

You're performing the metaphysical equivalent of attempting to measure distance with colors, then wondering why you're hitting an impasse.



I'm of the view that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to solipsism as you still haven't been able to get past the difference between metaphysical and epistemological solipsism.

I mean, the topic is called a dead end for (what I can now see) is good reason. Nothing really follows from it and it doesn't lead anywhere. From what I read and know you just box yourself into a corner with it too.....well actually I don't even know why one would do that.

I guess the argument could be made that you want to know things that you have certainty in and solipsism says that is you or your mind. But this is still an assumption as Nietzsche shows:

Quote:

“When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions, the argumentative proof of which would be difficult, perhaps impossible: for instance, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking—that I KNOW what thinking is. For if I had not already decided within myself what it is, by what standard could I determine whether that which is just happening is not perhaps 'willing' or 'feeling'? In short, the assertion 'I think,' assumes that I COMPARE my state at the present moment with other states of myself which I know, in order to determine what it is; on account of this retrospective connection with further 'knowledge,' it has, at any rate, no immediate certainty for me."—In place of the "immediate certainty" in which the people may believe in the special case, the philosopher thus finds a series of metaphysical questions presented to him, veritable conscience questions of the intellect, to wit: "Whence did I get the notion of 'thinking'? Why do I believe in cause and effect? What gives me the right to speak of an 'ego,' and even of an 'ego' as cause, and finally of an 'ego' as cause of thought?"




In short, in trying to employ Occam's Razor (which I believe solipsism fails to do as I explained in previous posts) it runs into it's own problems and issues that it cannot verify.

I don't want to sound derogatory but I can see why most consider metaphysics a useless branch of philosophy. Nothing I've seen there impacts my day to day at all.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Big_Dub]
    #27052101 - 11/22/20 12:31 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

As long as you're taking requests I want a BBQ chicken pizza

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,300
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel] * 1
    #27052270 - 11/22/20 01:31 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Sirshovel said:
I get all that but this:

Quote:

People argue that solipsism is useless and obviously false because it would mean that you're talking to yourself (as if that makes the experience any different). They say it "degrades" other people, that it's an obviously illogical philosophy because it would somehow assert "you" over "them".

In vivid dreams I've had, people have had strong arguments. I've had pity for others in the dream, argued with them, fought with them, even mourned for them, all with the pure conviction that these people were real. Yet in the morning I would wake up and realize that the arguments people made for their own existence said nothing about the truth of solipsism itself.




Still seems to agree with my point about how you don't know you are dreaming until you wake so you treat it as real.

From the thousands of pages I have read on solipsism the argument is the same for each one, you never know. That's really what it boils down to. So it's kind of useless.




Ever had a lucid dream? There was a period of time where I worked on having them. I've been able to enter the dream state while aware a couple times, but it was so shocking I almost instantly woke. And it's weird because I don't know why it was shocking... I guess seeing the static turn into a dreamscape before my very (internal) eyes is a shocking thing, but not in the way that I would want to bolt out of sleep. I'd like to stay and play.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." - Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Rahz]
    #27052386 - 11/22/20 02:43 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

I've tried a couple times in the past but it's very hard and when I do it doesn't last very long, almost like I have to force it to be that way. Usually stuff just happens and I roll with it.

But even then the way a dream behaves is radically different than reality so that old post I quoted about dreams doesn't really apply. Even in my most vivid ones (which were nightmares) the people never behaved liked in reality.

Which again still goes back to my question about how can one prove they are dreaming if they don't know? I know he meant to use dreams as an argument for solipsism but the problem there is how do you prove a dream from within a dream? Even if you wake from that dream it doesn't say anything about the world you wake up in, on that the previous world was a dream (then again, who really knows).

It's the "turtles all the way down problem" there is just no way to know if this reality is IT or just another layer. Heck, am I even real? I mean if I can dream of being someone else in a dream and in their world then who's to say I am not the same? Just a dream, a phantasm of another, what reason do I have to believe I can know I exist?

Just some curious things I ponder now and then.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,300
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27052438 - 11/22/20 03:32 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Sirshovel said:
Just some curious things I ponder now and then.




Same.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." - Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Rahz]
    #27052540 - 11/22/20 04:53 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

I will confess though that my weakness is taking some of this stuff too seriously.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,300
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27052915 - 11/22/20 08:21 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Yea, well you know life does not give us absolute certainty, not even with the most base of things. But I suspect you've got bigger fish to fry.

There was a time when I immersed myself in ideas that I knew weren't consequential or likely real. I still have a collection of quartz crystals from my early days of meditation. I would place one on the chakra I was working on, entertaining the idea that the crystal would magically help open them. I bought rune stones and tried to divine the future and I threw them away because they tend to entertain a type of thinking that is not healthy to my mind. For years it felt like fear was pouring out of me due to the confusion and the idea that I shouldn't be confused.

I'm still confused. I don't mind...


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." - Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGrapefruit
Freak in the forest
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 5,744
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Rahz] * 1
    #27053006 - 11/22/20 09:22 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

I knew a lady once who treated her crystals quite well, she didn't do much with them. But once every now and then on a sunny day they would be in a big bowl out on the back garden with a good fire blazing beside them. Definitely good for the mood. Being overly concerned about things is what's bad imo, crystal munching or not. Just don't give anything external any energy and it won't have power over you.


--------------------
Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. 

"Chat your fraff
Chat your fraff
Just chat your fraff
Chat your fraff"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Rahz]
    #27053099 - 11/22/20 09:57 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
Yea, well you know life does not give us absolute certainty, not even with the most base of things. But I suspect you've got bigger fish to fry.

There was a time when I immersed myself in ideas that I knew weren't consequential or likely real. I still have a collection of quartz crystals from my early days of meditation. I would place one on the chakra I was working on, entertaining the idea that the crystal would magically help open them. I bought rune stones and tried to divine the future and I threw them away because they tend to entertain a type of thinking that is not healthy to my mind. For years it felt like fear was pouring out of me due to the confusion and the idea that I shouldn't be confused.

I'm still confused. I don't mind...




I had my mom do that to me, she thought it would help with energies or whatever was bothering me. But to be honest it didn't do anything and it just made me sad, that there was no magic in the world like the kind I enjoyed in my fantasy games. Everything failed or I didn't see anything like I was supposed to and it made me think something was wrong with me. Eventually I sort of got over it but still hoped that it was true.

You are right about uncertainty though, it abounds but I have better things to do than wring my brain about unsolvable problems.

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/14562023/fpart/2/vc/1#14562023

I wanted to add that unlike what the person in the thread thinks solipsism is not the default position and the onus is not on the opponent to provide proof of realism. That is why there are two branches of solipsism.

But yeah, I'm trying to focus more of positive stuff rather than lacerating myself with this nonsense.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27055955 - 11/24/20 06:17 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

I just wanted to make some final remarks on the matter because of an argument I found elsewhere, likely on here.

Quote:

"I don't think that solipsism states that nothing exists besides our consciousness, it merely states that we can never know anything about what exists outside our consciousness because we will never experience anything other than our consciousness. which means there is no reason to believe other people are actually other minds, or to believe that the external world's contents will 'continue to exist' when we are not experiencing them.





I don't see why there is no reason to believe other people are other minds if; 1. I can't control them, 2. They look like me (you know what I mean, not like looking in a mirror), and 3. that they behave like me as well. To me there are plenty of reasons to believe that other people are other minds and that this is not a dream. I also know that the external world's contents do continue to exist when I am not experiencing them as well.

I can appreciate some speculation on the matter of solipsism, but sometimes I run into some bad arguments or interpretations along the way.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27055979 - 11/24/20 06:33 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

and there is no reason to believe that milk is actually a black solid.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27056327 - 11/24/20 09:51 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

If milk is a black solid then I'm Alice.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,300
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27056355 - 11/24/20 10:06 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Sirshovel said:
I just wanted to make some final remarks on the matter because of an argument I found elsewhere, likely on here.

Quote:

"I don't think that solipsism states that nothing exists besides our consciousness, it merely states that we can never know anything about what exists outside our consciousness because we will never experience anything other than our consciousness. which means there is no reason to believe other people are actually other minds, or to believe that the external world's contents will 'continue to exist' when we are not experiencing them.





I don't see why there is no reason to believe other people are other minds if; 1. I can't control them, 2. They look like me (you know what I mean, not like looking in a mirror), and 3. that they behave like me as well. To me there are plenty of reasons to believe that other people are other minds and that this is not a dream. I also know that the external world's contents do continue to exist when I am not experiencing them as well.

I can appreciate some speculation on the matter of solipsism, but sometimes I run into some bad arguments or interpretations along the way.




Yes, bad reasoning. B does not follow from A, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest there are other minds... but you do not know for sure :smile: though when it comes such things it's reasonable to say it is so as a practical matter.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." - Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Rahz]
    #27056375 - 11/24/20 10:21 PM (3 years, 4 months ago)

On some level I know that, I just have a hard time personally standing my ground and being OK with people who don't agree or have much stock in my reasoning abilities (which I think are better than I believe them to be).

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/869953/fpart/9/vc/1#869953

Quote:

Solipsism is counterproductive.

But what if it is the truth? Um... I didn't follow this thread, so I don't know what you guys have established as the definition of truth, so before I read the last few pages I'll drop my two cents: Truth is subjective experience. Everything else is an interpretation that shouldn't be judged by it's "truth", but by it's usefulness.

I am strongly arguing that solipsism is the only thing you've ever experienced. Everything else except solipsism is an interpretation you've come up with.

I don't think that solipsism is necessarily counterproductive, though it can certainly be so. But also, solipsism can be empowering. It can scare the hell out of you, or it can give you utter fearlessness. And most of all, it can be a difference that makes no difference.




I know this is PSP and discourse and back and forth is a thing, just sort of new to it. Not sure why I take people disagreeing with me as proof of solipsism when it, by definition, cannot be proven. It's rather counterproductive since there would be no point to doing anything IMO since it's just in your head and no one else exists. If anyone can make an argument how solipsism does not lead to nihilism I'd love to hear it but as far as I know it does.

That and if I'm being honest if I never heard of solipsism before I would not make the conclusion based on my experience of life and how I live it, so Occam's kinda fails there.

I do understand that what is useful doesn't always mean it is true (pragmatism) but IMO I don't see a good reason for a truth that does no good for someone or seeking just for it's own sake. Especially when it comes to unproveable questions.

Some have cited Godel as evidence for solipsism but actually it would invalidate solipsism itself (as much as any other logical system) since you cannot prove solipsism from within solipsism itself and so for it to be proven true it would have to be false.

Damn philosophy, making me read junk I never would have read on my own. I want my comics back.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27056464 - 11/25/20 12:27 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

.  As Chuang Tzu pointed out ages ago (c. 3rd century bce), we don't even know if we are dreaming. His point was not that the issue needs to be solved, but rather that what we need to do, is what we don't think we need to do.
.  In fact what needs to be done is simply to give up the need for certainty, that we don't even realize we are afflicted with. And as a result realize how little we know and to be ok with living in a mysterious world. After all everyones' childhood was that way, and that's why childhood has a magic, most grownups have not only lost, but forgotten there ever was such a possibility.

AND THATS ALL - THAT"S IT.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=chuang+tzu+butterfly+dream&t=h_&ia=web&iai=r1-1&page=1&adx=shv1b&sexp=%7B%22prodexp%22%3A%22b%22%2C%22prdsdexp%22%3A%22c%22%2C%22biaexp%22%3A%22b%22%2C%22shv1%22%3A%22b%22%7D

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLoaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 29 days, 13 hours
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Rahz]
    #27056479 - 11/25/20 12:45 AM (3 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
Quote:

Sirshovel said:
I just wanted to make some final remarks on the matter because of an argument I found elsewhere, likely on here.

Quote:

"I don't think that solipsism states that nothing exists besides our consciousness, it merely states that we can never know anything about what exists outside our consciousness because we will never experience anything other than our consciousness. which means there is no reason to believe other people are actually other minds, or to believe that the external world's contents will 'continue to exist' when we are not experiencing them.





I don't see why there is no reason to believe other people are other minds if; 1. I can't control them, 2. They look like me (you know what I mean, not like looking in a mirror), and 3. that they behave like me as well. To me there are plenty of reasons to believe that other people are other minds and that this is not a dream. I also know that the external world's contents do continue to exist when I am not experiencing them as well.

I can appreciate some speculation on the matter of solipsism, but sometimes I run into some bad arguments or interpretations along the way.




Yes, bad reasoning. B does not follow from A, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest there are other minds... but you do not know for sure :smile: though when it comes such things it's reasonable to say it is so as a practical matter.




In my honest opinion you guys are coming around.

The impasse created with solipsism is the erroneous assumption that causality is a determinative, rather than descriptive factor.

Empiricism is determinism, which is useful for physical proofs. Not everything can be proven, because not everything is a nail that requires a hammer. Some things are screws. Others are 90 degree angles and wedges.

Empiricism is the insistance that causality is a 100% certainty. It's not, even though it appears to be.

When all you have is a hammer, everything becomes a nail.

In this case, anything that's not a nail is argued to not actually exist, be unprovable, or be pseudo science relative to "physics", etc.

The obsession with causality is the deception that has people saying "If it requires a screw driver to move it, it doesn't exist, because all that exists are nails for me to hammer with causality, because that's all that actually exists!" lol.

When you appropriate that it all clicks and the quote above is spot the fuck on.

Solipsism requires causality to be determinative (when the reality is, it's a description of what's happening, not what's causing what's happening; YOU are the only cause!) for it's conclusion to rationally follow its premise.

There is fantastic discussion taking place in this thread.


--------------------



"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: Flag
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Loaded Shaman]
    #27056734 - 11/25/20 08:32 AM (3 years, 3 months ago)

So if I stated that all perceiving living entities are solipsists because it is their absolute consciousness that causes their experience how would I be approached?

In other words whose consciousness is this then?  May we all claim it?  If we do then what is it like a worker co-op of metaphysics...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27056911 - 11/25/20 10:33 AM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Yellow Pants said:
So if I stated that all perceiving living entities are solipsists because it is their absolute consciousness that causes their experience how would I be approached?

In other words whose consciousness is this then?  May we all claim it?  If we do then what is it like a worker co-op of metaphysics...




their absolute consciousness does not cause their experience, it is the very act of experiencing.
it is not a separate phase or alternate thing.
experiencing is consciousness.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: Flag
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27057204 - 11/25/20 02:37 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
Quote:

Yellow Pants said:
So if I stated that all perceiving living entities are solipsists because it is their absolute consciousness that causes their experience how would I be approached?

In other words whose consciousness is this then?  May we all claim it?  If we do then what is it like a worker co-op of metaphysics...




their absolute consciousness does not cause their experience, it is the very act of experiencing.
it is not a separate phase or alternate thing.
experiencing is consciousness.




But meta physics?  Or at least something to address the unknown and doubt.  Perhaps a god?

I asked earlier doesn’t it grant something that we die.  And were born.  This must be addressed!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Loaded Shaman]
    #27057229 - 11/25/20 02:59 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

laughingdog said:
.  As Chuang Tzu pointed out ages ago (c. 3rd century bce), we don't even know if we are dreaming. His point was not that the issue needs to be solved, but rather that what we need to do, is what we don't think we need to do.
.  In fact what needs to be done is simply to give up the need for certainty, that we don't even realize we are afflicted with. And as a result realize how little we know and to be ok with living in a mysterious world. After all everyones' childhood was that way, and that's why childhood has a magic, most grownups have not only lost, but forgotten there ever was such a possibility.

AND THATS ALL - THAT"S IT.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=chuang+tzu+butterfly+dream&t=h_&ia=web&iai=r1-1&page=1&adx=shv1b&sexp=%7B%22prodexp%22%3A%22b%22%2C%22prdsdexp%22%3A%22c%22%2C%22biaexp%22%3A%22b%22%2C%22shv1%22%3A%22b%22%7D




I really like that and it does mirror my stance about how we will never know truly if this reality is "IT" or that there isn't some other level beyond that, or beyond that, etc, etc.

So...just live I guess would be my philosophy.


Quote:

Loaded Shaman said:
Quote:

Rahz said:
Quote:

Sirshovel said:
I just wanted to make some final remarks on the matter because of an argument I found elsewhere, likely on here.

Quote:

"I don't think that solipsism states that nothing exists besides our consciousness, it merely states that we can never know anything about what exists outside our consciousness because we will never experience anything other than our consciousness. which means there is no reason to believe other people are actually other minds, or to believe that the external world's contents will 'continue to exist' when we are not experiencing them.





I don't see why there is no reason to believe other people are other minds if; 1. I can't control them, 2. They look like me (you know what I mean, not like looking in a mirror), and 3. that they behave like me as well. To me there are plenty of reasons to believe that other people are other minds and that this is not a dream. I also know that the external world's contents do continue to exist when I am not experiencing them as well.

I can appreciate some speculation on the matter of solipsism, but sometimes I run into some bad arguments or interpretations along the way.




Yes, bad reasoning. B does not follow from A, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest there are other minds... but you do not know for sure :smile: though when it comes such things it's reasonable to say it is so as a practical matter.




In my honest opinion you guys are coming around.

The impasse created with solipsism is the erroneous assumption that causality is a determinative, rather than descriptive factor.

Empiricism is determinism, which is useful for physical proofs. Not everything can be proven, because not everything is a nail that requires a hammer. Some things are screws. Others are 90 degree angles and wedges.

Empiricism is the insistance that causality is a 100% certainty. It's not, even though it appears to be.

When all you have is a hammer, everything becomes a nail.

In this case, anything that's not a nail is argued to not actually exist, be unprovable, or be pseudo science relative to "physics", etc.

The obsession with causality is the deception that has people saying "If it requires a screw driver to move it, it doesn't exist, because all that exists are nails for me to hammer with causality, because that's all that actually exists!" lol.

When you appropriate that it all clicks and the quote above is spot the fuck on.

Solipsism requires causality to be determinative (when the reality is, it's a description of what's happening, not what's causing what's happening; YOU are the only cause!) for it's conclusion to rationally follow its premise.

There is fantastic discussion taking place in this thread.




Ah yes, I remember your causality bit and how flawed it is. Causality is determinative yes, but that has nothing to do with solipsism which says that the self or your mind is all that exists. It doesn't always posit the existence of an external world or you as an author.

Causality is determinative you just haven't caught up to it yet. It is also a description of what's causing the happening. That's why there are investigators for fires to see if it was arson or not. I've also showed how it is mathematically possible to have a universe without cause and effect, with both being independent of each other, and effect preceding the cause.

But this is beside the point that the crux of your argument showcases a misunderstanding of what causality is, or in this case it's a strawman.

Quote:

Solipsism requires causality to be determinative (when the reality is, it's a description of what's happening, not what's causing what's happening; YOU are the only cause!) for it's conclusion to rationally follow its premise.





No. Some say that solipsism shows that you are the only cause, but the heart of metaphysical solipsism is that it claims you are the only thing that exists and nothing else. It has nothing to do with causality but with what can be known for certain, it's doubt to the extreme. But as shown before even it's one known is an assumption still.

It wouldn't say it's a description of anything per se since it doesn't really describe anything. It just asserts what can be known for sure and depending on which one you are talking about either is uncertain about there being an external reality or lack thereof, or flat out saying nothing else exists and there are no other minds.

From what I see it's a dead end, full stop. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. It leads nowhere. The argument is the conclusion. Ignoring how circular it is for consciousness to define itself in reference to itself, for in solipsism how can there be a ME without a YOU? What is self without other?

For the record I don't think consciousness is primary, I think there is a cause for it and there is evidence to back this (not proof) and some personal experience of mine leads me to believe that things happen outside my awareness.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27057518 - 11/25/20 05:43 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

....

But meta physics?  Or at least something to address the unknown and doubt.  Perhaps a god?

I asked earlier doesn’t it grant something that we die.  And were born.  This must be addressed!




Metaphysics need not be addressed as if it were meaningful just because the immortal soul has been waved over us for centuries as a method of herd management.

We dogs, we chimps, our whole family of fish, every bird and bug has consciousness while developing, being born, living its life, and dying.

Once the brain comes on-line, we begin experiencing and that stops when we die. Others beings continue and new ones are born in every kind of body with every kind of experience.

Metaphysics is social convention, a way to talk about what is unknown, but since those conventions have become popular, some of what was previously unknown has become known and much of what was considered true is no longer a good description to keep drumming into the children.

A good metaphysics should be renovated every six months or it goes stale.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27057727 - 11/25/20 08:04 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
Quote:

....

But meta physics?  Or at least something to address the unknown and doubt.  Perhaps a god?

I asked earlier doesn’t it grant something that we die.  And were born.  This must be addressed!




Metaphysics need not be addressed as if it were meaningful just because the immortal soul has been waved over us for centuries as a method of herd management.

We dogs, we chimps, our whole family of fish, every bird and bug has consciousness while developing, being born, living its life, and dying.

Once the brain comes on-line, we begin experiencing and that stops when we die. Others beings continue and new ones are born in every kind of body with every kind of experience.

Metaphysics is social convention, a way to talk about what is unknown, but since those conventions have become popular, some of what was previously unknown has become known and much of what was considered true is no longer a good description to keep drumming into the children.

A good metaphysics should be renovated every six months or it goes stale.




But haven't most of the same questions of metaphysics remained more or less unsolvable?

Also in the case of solipsism there are no other consciousnesses out there or even an out there.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27057756 - 11/25/20 08:29 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

largely that is due to how questions are asked,
the words and phrases crudely obstruct and constrain clarity today while the metaphysicists think in terms of noble equestrians.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines] * 1
    #27057832 - 11/25/20 09:27 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
while the metaphysicists think in terms of noble equestrians.




Ah, statuesque poetry to gallop off into the sunset of So-lips-sim,
Her lips were divine, but her lisp drove me crazy,
till the dim sum was served, with a subjective sweet and sour sauce.
When her lips enunciated each syllable seemed lazy,
& Picking out dim sum, from my noble teeth, I wished for dental floss.
Oh that wonderful, Chinese gal with the almond eyes called So-lips-sim.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: laughingdog]
    #27058138 - 11/26/20 05:26 AM (3 years, 3 months ago)

so pleasantly disrespectful
in every way


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: Flag
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27058238 - 11/26/20 08:07 AM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
Metaphysics need not be addressed as if it were meaningful just because the immortal soul has been waved over us for centuries as a method of herd management.

We dogs, we chimps, our whole family of fish, every bird and bug has consciousness while developing, being born, living its life, and dying.

Once the brain comes on-line, we begin experiencing and that stops when we die. Others beings continue and new ones are born in every kind of body with every kind of experience.

Metaphysics is social convention, a way to talk about what is unknown, but since those conventions have become popular, some of what was previously unknown has become known and much of what was considered true is no longer a good description to keep drumming into the children.

A good metaphysics should be renovated every six months or it goes stale.





I disagree.  Possibility is possibility and words like probability and likelihood are tossed aside when facing an infinite potential.  The unknown.  So I think that the fact that certain metaphysical systems have been around for thousands of years and not rehashed every other generation is a good way to go about it.  It hammers home the point better than if people were fidgeting every few years.

A hypothesis is one thing that assumes we have some ultimate clue about what is going on.  Do you have the brass to make this claim?  You said it yourself (we chimps)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27058695 - 11/26/20 12:24 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

but I do not actually know of any metaphysics that was really practiced for 1000 years let along many thousands of years.

I think that false credentials have been widely accepted to keep the ranks in line.

we hardly know about the beliefs of 500 years ago - but we do no they existed as vigorously as they struggle today to embrace reality.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27058822 - 11/26/20 02:03 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

I don’t know. I think there is a limit to the ways you can as a question. I don’t think the meta physicists think in any greater terms then most philosophers. I just think they waste their time on a topic that doesn’t really matter much in your day to day.

One thing I noticed in my struggle with solipsism is that it didn’t change everything else around me. So I tend to figure metaphysics has the same effect on my life.

Could I be dreaming? Who knows. I only know a dream is a dream when I wake from it. Considering I keep coming back here I would not say this is a dream (hence why the dream argument for solipsism doesn’t hold water for me, especially since my dreams are based on reality or draw material from it). How does one prove a dream from within the dream? You can’t according to Godel.

It’s largely why today I’m beginning to see solipsism for the waste of time it is and more like just some way to appear deep when it’s really just a new skin on an old question.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleFerdinando
Male

Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 3,695
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27059549 - 11/27/20 01:17 AM (3 years, 3 months ago)

I think it was very god is a spirit that is with us close to us and that is good and that steers

and without it we wouldn't have a bad or negative time

possible they thought it steered in a good way and it wouldn't be bad or negative without it

like it's a blue and transcendentation and wiser than us


--------------------
with our love with our love we could save the world

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Ferdinando]
    #27059626 - 11/27/20 04:47 AM (3 years, 3 months ago)

it is us, but not boxed in words and routine,
it is the less limited part of us that takes in the rhythms of the world and guides and helps us if we let it.

maybe it's Murphy too?


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27060063 - 11/27/20 11:45 AM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
it is us, but not boxed in words and routine,
it is the less limited part of us that takes in the rhythms of the world and guides and helps us if we let it.

maybe it's Murphy too?




The rhythm of the world? Sounds off beat to me.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27060189 - 11/27/20 01:25 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

plural

and simultaneously


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Edited by redgreenvines (11/27/20 01:26 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27060302 - 11/27/20 02:29 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

We dogs, we chimps, our whole family of fish, every bird and bug has consciousness while developing, being born, living its life, and dying.

Once the brain comes on-line, we begin experiencing and that stops when we die.




I only allow my goldfish to have a dial-up internet connection. Don't want him to get too advanced.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineInnerWisdom
Male

Registered: 08/09/19
Posts: 1,936
Loc: North EU
Last seen: 6 days, 15 hours
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #27060323 - 11/27/20 02:39 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Solipsism might be 99% true, if the simulation argument was correct.
but does it matter? no.
bullshit philosophy/ideology imo. total waste of time.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,300
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: InnerWisdom]
    #27060706 - 11/27/20 07:31 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

These questions have no true proof, so whether it's our dreams or reality that's in question, it's our experience of them and what it (might) mean that has created the questions. Our yearning for "something real". It's not purely an academic question either.

Dreams can seem real. The brain is fully able to input into our visual center a vision as real as the real. Life can seem like a dream. Not enough juice to feel awake and alive. At least not all the time right? Perhaps there's a state in which a person feels "real" or wants to and there is the perception of an inability to get there. They would not know what was real. Ultimately I don't think solipsism is an intellectual question, except to discuss the psychological aspects of it's consideration.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." - Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: InnerWisdom]
    #27061671 - 11/28/20 01:55 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

InnerWisdom said:
Solipsism might be 99% true, if the simulation argument was correct.
but does it matter? no.
bullshit philosophy/ideology imo. total waste of time.




The issue there is that there is no way to find out. Solipsism would have to be false in order to be proven true.

As to it mattering, depends. Some think it leads to nihilism immediately as there is no one else to talk to, nothing to learn, nothing to do, so then why keep going?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27062023 - 11/28/20 06:29 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

As Ravus pointed out in the first thread that I made on this topic, if you follow Occam's Razor very strictly, your end result will be solipsism. It seems to me that this is a HUGE philosophical problem that has been brushed aside for the most part. I would like to hear some others' thoughts on the matter.





I'd also just want to repeat this but following Occam's Razor would NOT lead one to solipsism.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: Flag
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27062121 - 11/28/20 07:59 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Sirshovel said:
Quote:

As Ravus pointed out in the first thread that I made on this topic, if you follow Occam's Razor very strictly, your end result will be solipsism. It seems to me that this is a HUGE philosophical problem that has been brushed aside for the most part. I would like to hear some others' thoughts on the matter.





I'd also just want to repeat this but following Occam's Razor would NOT lead one to solipsism.




Why not?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants] * 1
    #27062211 - 11/28/20 09:44 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Because Occam's Razor is used as a tool to decide between which two competing theories one should test. It is NOT a measurement of the truth of anything. In fact magicians and con men frequently exploit our reliance on the simple explanation to pull the wool over our eyes. It is also due to the human bias for the truth to be simple and elegant (to the point it's almost a spiritual or religious belief). But the Razor is not an argument or a measurement of the truth. Even the definition of "necessary" according to the Razor is a matter of great debate as is the nature of simple.

So stuff like this:

Quote:

Someone emailed me the link to this post, and I just wanted to make a small comment on it before we all continue on our ways.

People argue that solipsism is useless and obviously false because it would mean that you're talking to yourself (as if that makes the experience any different). They say it "degrades" other people, that it's an obviously illogical philosophy because it would somehow assert "you" over "them".

In vivid dreams I've had, people have had strong arguments. I've had pity for others in the dream, argued with them, fought with them, even mourned for them, all with the pure conviction that these people were real. Yet in the morning I would wake up and realize that the arguments people made for their own existence said nothing about the truth of solipsism itself.

Solipsism is the simplest explanation not because it takes dissent out of the picture, as it does not; dissent remains the same, and people will still argue against you, as they would in a dream. The true source of solipsism springs from the fact that we never verify someone else's consciousness or thoughts as an actual experience. In a dream, they all appear to have their own consciousness and thoughts, but actually they are just two-dimensional actors in a temporary play, and no matter how convincing they are, the emotional convictions we experience in a dream in no way make the people in the dream real.

Yet somehow, as soon as people wake up and turn off their alarm clock, they believe the experience shifts radically. Of course you're the only person in the dream, but this is now, and we have logic and thoughts, right? But we come back to the same point we were at in a dream; we are only acting on our subjective emotional conviction, and not any actual evidence. One could theoretically create artifical intelligence that mimicked human intelligence, emotions and thoughts, even arguing aptly for its own consciousness and vehemently denying solipsism, without actually being real.

All philosophies that assume others have consciousness, emotions or experience rely on leaps of faith, assumptions and emotional convictions. This is, of course, more than good enough for most people; they try to logically justify it, always ignoring the persistent fact that they can never actually know whether anyone else has consciousness because they can never experience it, and in fact their own experience has taught them that, in a postmodern sense, there is no difference between "real consciousness" (if such a thing exists) and a mimicking character in a dream.

So before you think that just because "college freshmen joke about solipsism" that it is ridiculous and lacking evidence, perhaps you should try waking up and seeing if the college freshmen are even there. Indeed, there is no way to know, so based on our experience and Occam's razor, what is the more logical philosophy here? Just as one shouldn't be so quick to be defeated by illusions in a dream, one should also question this waking dream we experience everyday and try thinking about what we actually know about the actors that would be the first to silence our questions.




Is a misuse and misunderstanding of the purpose of the Razor. Ironically the guy who devised this was using it to try and prove god.

The reality is that the Razor would be against solipsism since solipsism is asserting nothing else has minds or exists and you are it, which requires a great deal of assumptions and axioms to even get off the ground. The simpler explanation with minimal assumptions is that reality is as it appears with nothing else behind it.

I also say that the person in the quote would be wrong to question all "this" every day. Because it's a dead end. So I say "F It" and just live. These questions arise, as they tend to in philosophy and they always lead to the same dead ends. You can never know one way or the other so the best thing to do is pick a direction and go with it. It's faith to believe in solipsism because you cannot verify it and faith for realism for the same reasons.

IMO I cannot honestly believe or support solipsism, both for practical and logical reasons. If someone is trying to tell me other people have no minds and this is all in my own head I'd need some pretty damning evidence before I buy into that.

And no, "I can't be sure it isn't" doesn't even come close to it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineInnerWisdom
Male

Registered: 08/09/19
Posts: 1,936
Loc: North EU
Last seen: 6 days, 15 hours
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27062418 - 11/29/20 04:24 AM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Yeah Occam's Razor definitely is in favor of reality being "real" aka physical, because running some sort of simulation makes more assumptions and complicates things

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: Flag
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: InnerWisdom]
    #27062670 - 11/29/20 09:14 AM (3 years, 3 months ago)

I agree with the dude in the article.  Persuasive.  I am only sure my consciousness, or mind, exists.  Physicality requires a leap of faith where I must assume that the data coming into mind is what it suggests itself to be.  My consciousness however is known in itself where it isn’t merely implied.  Therefore, the razor would safely assume solipsism and regard everything else as a complication.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27062825 - 11/29/20 10:49 AM (3 years, 3 months ago)

if you are so sure that your consciousness exists, maybe you are a good person to describe just what you mean by 'consciousness'.
what is it that you seem to detect or know.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: Flag
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27062884 - 11/29/20 11:35 AM (3 years, 3 months ago)

I exist.  Idk what I exist as or what it is specifically.  I am not going to attempt a description or explanation for you to dissect.  Idk how it comes about but I am absolutely sure that I am (being).  Everything else is content within this existence.  And there are implications and inferences I can make about these things but they are nevertheless assumptions.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants] * 1
    #27062906 - 11/29/20 11:49 AM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Yellow Pants said:
I agree with the dude in the article.  Persuasive.  I am only sure my consciousness, or mind, exists.  Physicality requires a leap of faith where I must assume that the data coming into mind is what it suggests itself to be.  My consciousness however is known in itself where it isn’t merely implied.  Therefore, the razor would safely assume solipsism and regard everything else as a complication.




It actually wouldn't because that would entail and extra layer of complication that you cannot prove. You are essentially arguing that what you see before you does not exist which is about as complicated as it gets.

As for being sure that your conscious mind exists:

Quote:

“When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions, the argumentative proof of which would be difficult, perhaps impossible: for instance, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking—that I KNOW what thinking is. For if I had not already decided within myself what it is, by what standard could I determine whether that which is just happening is not perhaps 'willing' or 'feeling'? In short, the assertion 'I think,' assumes that I COMPARE my state at the present moment with other states of myself which I know, in order to determine what it is; on account of this retrospective connection with further 'knowledge,' it has, at any rate, no immediate certainty for me."—In place of the "immediate certainty" in which the people may believe in the special case, the philosopher thus finds a series of metaphysical questions presented to him, veritable conscience questions of the intellect, to wit: "Whence did I get the notion of 'thinking'? Why do I believe in cause and effect? What gives me the right to speak of an 'ego,' and even of an 'ego' as cause, and finally of an 'ego' as cause of thought?"




Quote:

You can turn their own argument around on them and ask, "How can you be sure your mind isn't a figment of imagination in the mind of a god? How can you be sure your mind isn't just a collection of bits, a simulation running on an alien supercomputer?". And we could just keep adding more and more meta-levels ad infinitum, since after all, how can the god or aliens be sure that they themselves aren't just minds in a figment of some greater being's imagination?

But this line of argument is essentially sophistry, and legitimizes their viewpoint by buying into its premises. Instead, a more difficult but ultimately more rigorous path is to point out that a truly radical skepticism would entail doubting everything except doubting itself and then to question how one can define mind/consciousness in the absence of an external reality; i.e., how can we even speak of consciousness as a "monad" if our (already vague) definitions of consciousness are grounded in an external reality? How can we define the thing that does the doubting without making reference to unprovable concepts (which is basically every concept from the Solipsist’s radically skeptical point of view).

If consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, how does consciousness produce the brain, and thus itself, without it becoming circular logic? If consciousness is related to the brain but is not reducible to physical interactions (as some philosophy of mind platonists claim), how does consciousness produce the brain and the dualistic aspect, and thus itself, without it becoming circular logic?

Or do we simply take consciousness to be an ultimate antecedent and consider any definition of it to be secondary? In which case, there can be no reasoning about it and the statement, "All of reality is a mere aspect of my consciousness.", loses much of its meaning: one is then already presupposing the conclusion, and this is known as begging the question.

In summary, Solipsism cannot be strongly disproven but at the same time any arguments for it are demonstrably inane.




In short, positing that reality is not what it appears to be (which is what solipsism is essentially arguing) goes against the Razor.

But again, the Razor is not proof or evidence for the truth of a statement.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27062945 - 11/29/20 12:18 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

not for me to dissect but for you and everyone who can read.
I think what you said is valid:

"I am absolutely sure that I am (being).  Everything else is content within this existence.  And there are implications and inferences I can make about these things but they are nevertheless assumptions"

if you can, please do take it further;
I promise I will not dissect. you can go out on a ledge about this.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: Flag
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27063018 - 11/29/20 01:24 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Sirshovel said:
In short, positing that reality is not what it appears to be (which is what solipsism is essentially arguing) goes against the Razor.

But again, the Razor is not proof or evidence for the truth of a statement.




It's not that I claim you don't exist.  It's that I am uncertain of it.  I am not uncertain.  And the simplest next step is that I exist.  You maybe not.

And you may thrash around yell really loud.  :shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27063035 - 11/29/20 01:39 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

I think your idea of him is different from the real Sirshovel - so you got two of them now - one you are imagining thrashing and yelling loud, and some other one with whom you are communicating.

starting to look like mirrors are lining up.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: Flag
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27063044 - 11/29/20 01:47 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Communicating?  I did not see that in the itinerary.  Idk "the real" Sirshovel and this is the point.  I may get to know him very well yet his existence would still be uncertain.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,300
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants] * 1
    #27063077 - 11/29/20 02:08 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

What level of uncertainty though? Must one be absolutely certain beyond a shadow of a doubt to be certain of something? Someone may have stolen my truck since I was last outside, but I am certain it's there. I am not absolutely certain though.

And yet it is something which I rely on. There is a utility in having this belief.

I don't think the same applies to solipsism because the effect is the same whether there is a belief in another person's existence or not. Whether they are real in the same way you are, or only a product of your imagination, there is no difference right?

Still, everything we experience having to do with others points to their existence being real. The only evidence they are not is the lack of absolute certainty. Does that seem reasonable?

I mean, I know I am real. I very strongly suspect you are real. And certainly it couldn't be the case that you are real and I am not. Or am I just you fucking with you? lol.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." - Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Rahz] * 1
    #27063305 - 11/29/20 04:14 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

That's sort of what I am getting at, that the level of uncertainty the solipsism posits is useless mostly because no one acts as though it is so (hence there is no true solipsists).

Quote:

If the Solipsist changes tack and merely argues that any knowledge of an external world or other minds is uncertain, that they can only be sure of their own mind, then it's a little more difficult.

But this position is hardly any different from that of Instrumentalism/Fallibilism. There really is no absolute knowledge; it only exists as probabilistic associations in the brain which form functional, instrumental models that are gradually refined through falsification.

And since the Solipsist will prove with their actions that they model reality in terms of independent agents and a persistent external world, you can charge them with simply being eristical.




As I showed before the "I AM" is not a known, it's an assumption. You could just be a computer program, a dream, a figment. How do you know you are conscious? How do I know?

Yes even your very existence is not a given. How do I know I am me and not just someone who looks like me? I saw a few threads where people said they are not solipsists because they don't believe there is an "I" that exists. In fact all that can really be known is that thinking is occurring. Tying anything else to that is faith.

Edited by Sirshovel (11/29/20 04:29 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27063726 - 11/29/20 09:02 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

I like that
"how do you know you are conscious?"


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLoaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 29 days, 13 hours
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27063874 - 11/30/20 01:04 AM (3 years, 3 months ago)

An illusion of reality must have its categorical root in reality; which makes illusions of reality a direct function of reality. Which means that they are not in fact illusions at all, but merely reality. In other words, something which is an existential illusion is a contradiction, and cannot, by definition, exist. The lack of existence with respect to reality is what makes an illusion an illusion.

An illusion then, is purely an abstract concept. There is no such thing as an illusion qua illusion, because that’s a contradiction. We simply have reality, and functions of reality according to man’s ability to conceptualize it.

Further it means that there is no such thing as an illusion of consciousness, as the determinists like to describe human awareness of Self. For an illusory consciousness is merely a synonym for illusory reality: that is,  you cannot know what is real (that is, what is True), because “you” qua “you”–as you understand you–is an illusion. So if reality cannot be an illusion because it must have its categorical root in actual reality, then consciousness cannot be an illusion for the same reason.

Besides, to claim that your consciousness is a direct effect of either an unconscious cause, like the laws of physics, or a conscious one, like God or some super-advanced alien race running a matrix-style computer program, makes the illusion of consciousness impossible because what is entirely an illusion cannot, again, by definition exist.

You cannot have an illusion of a thing where the illusion is something distinct from that which is not an illusion because then that thing, being distinct–having “self”—is not an illusion, it is real. An illusion of consciousness which is utterly distinct from its “cause” is nothing less than real consciousness. And if it’s not distinct then it’s not real–it has no self–which means that it doesn’t exist; and thus “it” isn’t an illusion because “it” isn’t anything all.

So stop listening to people trying to convince you that you aren’t real, you have no real awareness, and that you cannot really know anything. This is what solipsists are ultimately arguing without consciously realizing it, because their premise is rooted in a flawed metaphysic, which means everything built from there, including all reasoning, logic, deductions, and conclusions are going to be flawed, inaccurate, and/or straight contradictory.


--------------------



"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Loaded Shaman]
    #27063892 - 11/30/20 02:18 AM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Loaded Shaman said:
An illusion of reality must have its categorical root in reality; which makes illusions of reality a direct function of reality. Which means that they are not in fact illusions at all,...





.  What is "a direct function of reality" ? Say a number of people see the same event or thing but they all report something different - happens all the time -- what then? How does this seemingly meaningful phrase clarify anything?
.  Or take the case of religions. As they contradict each other on many important points some must be illusory. So just to pick some arbitrary examples, how does calling the story of Noah & the Ark, or the idea that the earth is flat, or the idea that the sun revolves around the earth, "a direct function of reality" shed any light on the matter? Such ideas are in fact 'illusions'.

.  This seems the premise above, but I fail to see its value. Sure every dream is due to some millions of obscure causes and effects that are all connected, and interconnected in harmony with some ultimate reality, but so what? Infinity cannot be harnessed.
.  It is impossible to predict the weather more than a few days in advance even when one has the fanciest computers and Terabytes of data. In the case of illusions and humans the data changes faster than it can be processed. At a crude level Jack Kerouac encountered this when he put a roll of paper feeding into his typewriter to write "On The Road". He had fun for awhile though, even though of course everyone who reads it will conjure up their own images, and illusions. Never-the-less I'm not a fan of sloppyism.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: Flag
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27064100 - 11/30/20 07:47 AM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Sirshovel said:
As I showed before the "I AM" is not a known, it's an assumption. You could just be a computer program, a dream, a figment. How do you know you are conscious? How do I know?

Yes even your very existence is not a given. How do I know I am me and not just someone who looks like me? I saw a few threads where people said they are not solipsists because they don't believe there is an "I" that exists. In fact all that can really be known is that thinking is occurring. Tying anything else to that is faith.




Being is.  (absolute)

I agree however that “I” is uncertain.

Yet, “I” is social lubrication and not a claim about its nature.  “I am”.  “I” am expressing being (to you)

It might then be more accurate to say “This Is”.  But there is a difference between expressing something to be handled socially vs. the truth.  The truth = being

And you might be doubtful.  Hence the warrant for “I” :strokebeard:

Edited by Yellow Pants (11/30/20 08:08 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27064553 - 11/30/20 12:44 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Yellow Pants said:
...

Being is.  (absolute)

I agree however that “I” is uncertain.

..



lose the "(absolute)"
when you say being is, I think you mean that the sense of body and place are consistent in many regards, and you have some allowance for mind, but it is loosely trained, attracted to games, and confused with the identity factors.

especially in the context of solipsism, stay close to the body factors and consider mind in context of what is in mind, and how memories form, how memories enable perception.

if you can get beyond that elementary observation set (it is huge) then you may have more edge when it comes to this game you are playing.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27065027 - 11/30/20 04:59 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

I would argue against anything being absolute. That’s more of a human cry for certainty than truth. As I said I could be a dream, I’ve certainty had dreams of being someone else and it certainly felt real. I could just be a program on a computer and this “beingness” is used for testing purposes.

How do I prove I am conscious either or have a mind? I mean I learned these terms from outside my knowledge and yet you see solipsists using them like they mean anything. I mean what is consciousness without sensation either? What is awareness without anything to be aware OF? As the quote before mentioned this line of reasoning quickly breaks down like anything else with solipsism.

In trying to shave everything away the solipsists ends up with more axioms than the realist does oddly enough.

I would like to say I am or that I exist but I don’t know that for sure. I mean since when did reality correlate with our ability to comprehend? Sure you can point to “this” but that doesn’t amount to much else than a truism. And if you were a solipsist there would be no one else to communicate this too. You can keep on saying “this” but what is “this”? This is this, one would flail around and say. But to anyone else they don’t know what you mean.

This seems to be getting off track. Personally I think solipsism is a topic people give way more credit than it deserves. It’s a problem that can’t be solved and even if you did by some miracle prove it true it would be a very hollow victory. I mean...who would you prove it to? Even then, how could you verify it? Even to this day I cannot see a way to prove it true, that I am all that is and everything is a figment. I e already explained how dreams are not an argument for solipsism.

But I think Rhaz nailed it with, “does it even matter”? I mean whether real or not the experience is the same either way. There is no difference between “real” reality and a perfect simulation. In my dreams I experience flight and many things that are normally impossible here.

Even looking for something you can be absolutely certain of is doomed as there is no such thing. It’s a crutch for the scared mammal eager to have some sort of dominion over his existence. We do our best with what we have, and that’s all one can ever ask.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: Flag
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27065127 - 11/30/20 05:55 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

I would say that I am speaking with a naturalist and a psychologist where the analysis is finitely understood.  When I make the statement that being is absolute it is not in the finite and linear sense.  The objection that goes something like “you are a animal and you are trying to justify your existence that is only temporary etc etc” does not weigh very much against my claim.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27065557 - 11/30/20 10:13 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

as a claim, you might think you have prospector rights and are allowed to defend your claim with lethal force.
I get it, it's not your personal psychedelic teddy bear at all.
you just don't want to share.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: Flag
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27065931 - 12/01/20 08:34 AM (3 years, 3 months ago)

How about this, “personal psychedelic teddy bear”.  I like it.  But what do you think about this question - what comes first the person or the group.  What is the more essential existence?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27066038 - 12/01/20 10:19 AM (3 years, 3 months ago)

the purest thing is sensation
not a construct like ego or other


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: Flag
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27066424 - 12/01/20 01:56 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Ok.  So sensation being the purest thing then you would consider the individual with a more essential existence.  And it is not just the concept of sensation but I imagine you would say you are sensation.  And you would not consider this absolute? If not, then why?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,062
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27066557 - 12/01/20 03:05 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

I would leave off "absolute" as unnecessary.

I did not mean the concept of sensation, but any sensation in the moment it occurs is the purest thing possible in the mind.

the cascade of memories that create perception after sensation is fairly pure and certainly honest and fresh, but the raw sensation is most pure.

the self is like baggage in comparison.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27066627 - 12/01/20 03:45 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

I find absolute a dirty word in philosophy because it implies a sense of perfection that I think we can never reach.

Quote:

I believe it (or at least respect it) because there is no hard evidence to suggest an alternative viewpoint (other than personal comfort and social convenience), it is seemingly impossible to disprove, and it is the final product of Occam's razor.





Unlike the OP (of this thread) there is no hard evidence to support solipsism or realism, they are two directions based on the same starting point (sensation). You could argue there is nothing else besides you but there is no way to prove that. You could argue there is an external reality and other minds, and I would say there is plenty of evidence to suggest this, but even then there is no outright proof of such a thing.

It's important to remember that the tools was made to make sense of reality and interpret it may very well be wrong. Occam's Razor is such and example, even though OP greatly misuses and misunderstands what it's for, especially since the razor applies to two competing explanations (and solipsism does not explain anything so the razor does not apply, also solipsism is not testable so that is even further why the Razor does not apply to it). Simplicity, while beloved, is not a measure of truth. I'd also submit that reality is could be beyond our own ability to rationalize and reason, as all we have is sensation and brains to make sense of it all.

From what I see most philosophies seem to be  stab in the dark, doing the best with what they have. Solipsism is not this. Not to mention that it is futile to promote the philosophy itself, it only works as a private belief.

I prefer to settle more towards the wonder and mystery of the universe rather than try to slap an "ism" on it to make myself cozy.

Either that or just go with what works.

Edited by Sirshovel (12/01/20 03:50 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: Flag
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27066660 - 12/01/20 04:11 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
I would leave off "absolute" as unnecessary.

I did not mean the concept of sensation, but any sensation in the moment it occurs is the purest thing possible in the mind.

the cascade of memories that create perception after sensation is fairly pure and certainly honest and fresh, but the raw sensation is most pure.

the self is like baggage in comparison.





So is sensation most pure or the mind.  You are saying sensation (most pure) occurs in the mind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 101
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27066949 - 12/01/20 06:49 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Assuming there is a mind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,300
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27067054 - 12/01/20 07:35 PM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Sirshovel said:
Unlike the OP (of this thread) there is no hard evidence to support solipsism or realism, they are two directions based on the same starting point (sensation). You could argue there is nothing else besides you but there is no way to prove that. You could argue there is an external reality and other minds, and I would say there is plenty of evidence to suggest this, but even then there is no outright proof of such a thing.




There is no proof, but realism is the context in which hard evidence happens, so there is hard evidence for realism unless we consider everything to be soft which would be assuming a belief in solipsism.To justify this one must have a reason for why we shouldn't differentiate between hard evidence and soft evidence because the differences are apparent.

Why isn't there physical damage when you punch an imaginary rock?

Even if we assume reality to not be real in a material sense, it's vision is still different than a dream with eyes closed, or thought or idea. This would indicate different types of dreams, one contained in the other. One dream is the dream of the real and one dream is the dream of the unreal which apparently happens within the context of a dream of reality. We cannot wake up from reality, only go to sleep to it, though we can sleep ourselves into dreams. Does it matter which is base or fundamental? The evidence itself is the difference, not the proof.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." - Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: Solipsism Revisited: Revisited [Re: Rahz]
    #27067430 - 12/02/20 12:15 AM (3 years, 3 months ago)

Re: OP it stars saddam
"To all those that are quick to negate the philosophy that nothing exists outside of one's own perception, how can you possibly prove otherwise? I've been racking my brain trying to find some way to make the principles of solipsism seem less blatantly obvious, but I'm at a loss here.
...It seems to me that this is a HUGE philosophical problem that has been brushed aside for the most part. I would like to hear some others' thoughts on the matter."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

.  What does belief in slopism enable a person to do that they couldn't do otherwise?

.  Many in the nuthouse, think they are Napoleon, or some similar fantasy. Unless we are paid big bucks and experts we don't bother to attempt to fix them. We just know it is a pointless belief, and make sure not to adopt it ourselves.
.  Some conspiracy theories are apparently quite contagious, and some cults apparently quite attractive to some, so it may be worth while to develop some critical thinking ability.

.  The question above is part of a critical thinking tool kit.
And yes I know it has a misspelling.
In science it is asked if a hypothesis is testable, or not. This is considered, a real objection to String Theory, in the field of  physics.
Perhaps it applies here as well.
Seems to me, the notion ( of Solipsism) mainly has value, as way to generate discussion, among those who aren't particular as to what they choose to debate. But perhaps I'm just the pompous fool part of your simulation.

Edited by laughingdog (12/02/20 12:21 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Revisiting Enlightenment.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Icelander 9,916 106 03/30/07 07:10 PM
by spiritualemerg
* Bunch of solipsists walk into a bar
( 1 2 all )
Penelope_Tree 3,351 20 05/16/12 08:05 AM
by redgreenvines
* A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Human Spirit: The Luddites Revisited Autonomous 1,248 6 05/10/05 12:08 PM
by dr0mni
* Belief revisited...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Swami 9,620 126 11/13/02 10:26 AM
by FreakQlibrium
* 2012: Revisited
( 1 2 3 all )
Frog 5,128 50 12/28/03 01:01 AM
by Deiymiyan
* Sleep paralysis revisited, or How real is real? Anonymous 1,086 7 05/08/04 02:54 PM
by Redo
* Every Nation & Every Region swimmingfast 275 4 10/30/12 12:20 PM
by swimmingfast
* Homeopathy/psych meds: revisited
( 1 2 3 all )
SneezingPenis 2,763 42 01/22/06 06:03 PM
by Icelander

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
14,548 topic views. 1 members, 3 guests and 19 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.114 seconds spending 0.015 seconds on 15 queries.