If solipsism is true, then I am the solipsist and you all wouldnt even be mindless zombies. You all would simply be mindless strings of scribbles on a screen.
If solipsism is true, then why would it seem like I am just another human with a mind in the world? How and why would this illusion of a world with other minds exist?
Terrapin StationJune 08, 2019 at 13:33#2956300 likes
Kick a rock.
Terrapin StationJune 08, 2019 at 13:36#2956310 likes
Yeah, basically "If solipsism is true, then only I exist or at least I can only know that I exist. But I don't believe this. So either solipsism isn't true or no one believes it, no one believes there's any good reason to entertain it, and so there's no reason to worry about it/waste any time on it."
Harry Hindu
2k
If solipsism is true, then I am the solipsist and you all wouldnt even be mindless zombies. You all would simply be mindless strings of scribbles on a screen.
If solipsism is true, then why would it seem like I am just another human with a mind in the world? How and why would this illusion of a world with other minds exist?
I do NOT know that you exist, Harry.
You may be part of an illusion attempting to make me think there is no illusion.
I've recently started to look at solypsism as a kind of metrology investigation. If we want to measure something, we use a pattern and we compare what we want to measure to it. The result will be a number times the value of the pattern. For example: a rock weighing 3 kg is just 3 times the value of the current accepted pattern of 1 kg from the international bureau of standards (which will be soon changed). Some other object could weight less than a kg as well. When it comes to reality we don't have a pattern that will confirm how real something is or is not because if it existed it would still be part of the world whose reality we question and therefore, not a pattern, since we are not sure about its value of reality. We don't really know anything outside of us and we can't be sure everything around us is also result of a very vivid imagination. My conclusion: solipsism does not need to be refuted, it has to be neglected. Even if this is some kind of dream produced by me, I can still enjoy it and most of the time I will not even care.
Reply to Frank Apisa wasnt that essentially the point of my post? I know that I have a mind. Therefore, if solipsism is true, I would be the solipsist. I don't need to prove to you that I have a mind for me to know that I have a mind.
Harry Hindu
2k
?Frank Apisa
wasnt that essentially the point of my post? I know that I have a mind. Therefore, if solipsism is true, I would be the solipsist. I don't need to prove to you that I have a mind for me to know that I have a mind.
But there is NO way for me to know I am conversing with a "you"...or just having a conversation with myself in an illusion in which I am the only being.
Being solipsistic, by the way, does not mean denying that others exist. It simply means that I can only KNOW that I exist. You may actually exist. I cannot know it. I cannot know my wife exists...or my closest friends. But, of course, they may.
Solipsism merely acknowledges what we can know...in the truest sense.
Being solipsistic, by the way, does not mean denying that others exist. It simply means that I can only KNOW that I exist. You may actually exist. I cannot know it. I cannot know my wife exists...or my closest friends. But, of course, they may.
This is usually just skepticism, if you're emphasis is on the knowledge.
[quote=wikipedia]
As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. This extreme position is claimed to be irrefutable, as the solipsist believes to be the only true authority, all others being creations of their own mind.
[/quote]
Is the OP's meaning.
I would agree there's no way to convince a solipsist that I exist, so it's irrefutable in that sense.
Many things are irrefutable in this way, I can't convince someone who denies the law of non-contradiction or that there is any truth at all, I can't convinceReply to Terrapin Station that goading me into writing more than him isn't a good goal, as writing more to express that just confirms to him that I have written more and he should thus deny more to get more writing out of me; it's irrefutable and there's no use struggling against that or making a deal of it of course).
However, there maybe reasons for me to believe other people really do exist, and it maybe impossible for a solipsist to convince me that they don't exist.
For one, there are no facts regarding whether something is good or not. It rather refers to a way that we feel.
Exactly my point. I can't convince you, and me typing this is achieving your goal, but I'm a friendly guy who believes people are ends in themselves and so I help when I can (when helping doesn't impede my own goal of treating everyone as an ends in themselves). I type more for my own ends and in so doing accomplish yours; it's a win-win if I ever saw one.
Terrapin StationJune 08, 2019 at 20:50#2957750 likes
But can he doubt his doubting?
— Merkwurdichliebe
If he can doubt, he can doubt his doubt.
And if he can doubt his doubt, he is intrinsically doing so.
But then he is only doubting, which again he cannot doubt. He is certain of the reality of his immediacy, and nothing else. This is what makes him solipsistic.
MerkwurdichliebeJune 09, 2019 at 09:23#2958850 likes
Yeah, basically "If solipsism is true, then only I exist or at least I can only know that I exist. But I don't believe this. So either solipsism isn't true or no one believes it, no one believes there's any good reason to entertain it, and so there's no reason to worry about it/waste any time on it."
There are certain individuals who entertain solipsistic reasoning, and it is definitely worth wasting time on them. :grin:
Reply to Merkwurdichliebe Well, regardless if you're a solipsist or not, when doubting - you are certain of your doubt. So at all times of doubt, you implore and explore certainty and its possibilities.
Well, regardless if you're a solipsist or not, when doubting - you are certain of your doubt. So at all times of doubt, you implore and explore certainty and its possibilities.
...your doubt is just nuanced certainty.
You really have to enter the mind of the solipsist to understand it.
There are two things that will help to clarify. There is the epistemic certainty, in which I know my doubt is true - that it definitively corresponds to something that warrants doubting. Then there is the existential certainty of immediacy - that what I am experiencing in the "here" and "now" is present to me: viz. my doubting. The first mode of doubting is a nuanced certainty -
dependent on the epistemic status of my doubting. The second mode is a certain certainty - it is existentially bound to my immediacy, and independent of epistemic concerns.
The first mode of doubting is a nuanced certainty -
dependent on the epistemic status of my doubting. The second mode is a certain certainty - it is existentially bound to my immediacy, and independent of epistemic concerns.
Aren't they both certain and nuanced?
Both are immediate and both are dependent.
Whichever you remove, you would be removing the whole thing; no?
MerkwurdichliebeJune 09, 2019 at 10:22#2959090 likes
Aren't they both certain and nuanced?
Both are immediate and both are dependent.
Whichever you remove, you would be removing the whole thing; no?
Perfect model.
Two cards. Their relation, and the necessary dynamic (they are equally balanced; by removing one the opposite will fall; &c) are determined epistemically. Any certainty of this system is nuanced, it is dependent upon its particular status (however it may be determined).
The certainty of immediacy is independent of the configuration of the cards, and even of the recognition of cards. And although the ignorance to the objects of distinction (there being cards) is overshadowing, it is secondary to the particularity of immediacy. As soon as the solipsist projects beyond his immediacy, he is no longer solipsist.
But that would mean the configuration and recognition of cards is independent of its immediate certainty; is it?
This is a broad issue. But, sticking to solipsism, nothing exists beyond my immediacy, which may or may not include my recognition of an object, or an object's attributes and relations.
Solipsim is one of the most complete and coherent perspectives. But, this does not equate to the best perspective.
the configuration and recognition of cards is independent of its immediate certainty
Then the solipsist, exists independently of immediacy, and is not necessarily immediate.
By that, here's a wild notion - the moment you are immediate, you are not solipsistic.
Limiting the solipsist to immediacy, expels him from, for lack of a better word, the yet.
MerkwurdichliebeJune 09, 2019 at 11:12#2959260 likes
the configuration and recognition of cards is independent of its immediate certainty
That is not a concern for the solipsist, unless this thought happens to occur in his immediacy. For normal chumps like you, TPF, and me, that the configuration and identity of the cards is maintained independent of my immediate certainty is essential, and quite fun to discuss philosophically.
Reply to Merkwurdichliebe The issue I'm proposing is that the solipsist should be incapable of immediacy and following from that - experience. As a whole, the solipsist is incapable.
Which would entertain the idea, as to the personifications of the Godhead - which are necessary for the Godhead to experience and be immediate and do anything.
MerkwurdichliebeJune 09, 2019 at 11:22#2959300 likes
But don't discount the importance of your own immediacy just because the solipsist takes it overboard. Immediacy is the fundamental relation? of the individual. I hold the individual in high esteem. The more original, the higher.
I would never discount the immediate part of my own partly-immediate cohesion; partly because I don't know how.
That immediate part that you mention is all that matters to the solipsist, partly because he does not know how to move beyond that part with any confidence.
The difference between the solipsist and everybody else, is everybody else moves beyond it.
That immediate part that you mention is all that matters to the solipsist, partly because he does not know how to move beyond that part with any confidence.
The best analogy to solipsism that I can imagine is that of living in a dream world without any reference to the actual world since the world and self are the same for the solipsist.
Thoughts?
Pattern-chaserJune 09, 2019 at 12:33#2959460 likes
Is solipsism is the case, then what the solipsist "experiences" is all there is. There would be nothing external, or no causes prior to any "experience".
"Mind", "experience", and "knowledge" become incoherent in such a case. The only term that would apply is "reality".
If anything, the solipsist would have direct access to all of reality, and therefore solipsism essentially becomes a form of direct realism, and solipsism defeats itself, as there are no minds at all. Only a reality.
Are there an practical consequences accepting “solipsism” is true vs it is not. I would venture to guess no one would do anything different in this world other than go around say “Solipsism is true”
My refutation of this idea is simple. Conceptual it is no different, practically, than utilizing the concepts in this world minus “solipsism” . But like any concept, maybe some future experience would make me reconsider.
Richard B
29
Are there an practical consequences accepting “solipsism” is true vs it is not. I would venture to guess no one would do anything different in this world other than go around say “Solipsism is true”
My refutation of this idea is simple. Conceptual it is no different, practically, than utilizing the concepts in this world minus “solipsism” . But like any concept, maybe some future experience would make me reconsider.
And those who choose to guess they are all that exists...are not doing anything more absurd than peole who guess there is a GOD...or who guess there are no gods.
Nothing wrong with guessing...although in areas like this, I personally do not do it. It matters not what is when dealing with my day to day life.
It cannot be denied that there IS only one of YOUR perspective. It requires a leap of faith to believe that there are other perspectives. OK. But every referential statement requires a similar leap of faith. You cannot prove that this moment actually followed the last moment. Maybe you are a fragmented collection of moments that all contain memories of entire lifetimes. Maybe you only exist for one moment. THIS ONE. Solipsism is one of the least creative of alternative ontologies. No wonder solipsists are so lonely..
Yeah, basically "If solipsism is true, then only I exist or at least I can only know that I exist. But I don't believe this. So either solipsism isn't true or no one believes it, no one believes there's any good reason to entertain it, and so there's no reason to worry about it/waste any time on it."
Or the only person there is decided to forget for a while that he/she/it is all there is. And now parts of itself - like figures in a dream - are starting to remind him/her/it of the true ontology. A forgetting as play, or perhaps simply as a facet of this self's process. A neo-hinduism, say.
Reply to Coben
In theater, it is called the suspension of disbelief.
Your comment is interesting from the point of view of how to chart the path of an individual psyche.
The experience of dreams plays a part.
In terms of proving one set of circumstances to be the case over another, dreams are arbitrary in a way that waking life is not.
In theater, it is called the suspension of disbelief.
Your comment is interesting from the point of view of how to chart the path of an individual psyche.
The experience of dreams plays a part.
In terms of proving one set of circumstances to be the case over another, dreams are arbitrary in a way that waking life is not.
Sure, it would be similar to dreams, but not the same. Similar in the sense that what seems like something other than us is not. More coherent as you point out, yes. I am not trying to say 'life is a dream', just using what purist non-solipsists might agree happens in dreams, as a potential eplanation for a facet of what might be happening if solipsism is the case. I am not a solipsist, but I still think it is less easily written off, so I hopped in with an argument.
In fact, I actually think that solipsism might be partially true. (not epistemological solipsism which is even tricker to counter) IOW perhaps it is both true that there is but a singel consciousness and that there are separate or partially separate consciousnesses. Though this is not someting I can demonstrate.
MathematicalPhysicistJune 19, 2019 at 09:16#2992510 likes
It cannot be denied that there IS only one of YOUR perspective. It requires a leap of faith to believe that there are other perspectives.
On the contrary, multiple perspectives are usually a central part of being human. Different ways of looking at things can be hugely valuable and useful, IME.
Solipsism is one of the least creative of alternative ontologies. No wonder solipsists are so lonely..
The use of solipsism is as a lesson: no matter how daft a theory might be, it can only be refuted by evidence. And if there is no evidence, there can be no refutation. So, no matter how odd or unlikely you think solipsism is, it cannot be refuted. This applies to all theories which are possible but for which there is no evidence.
By "perspective", I meant the narrative and experiential perspective that is me. I agree that we can take various positions on ideas and beliefs, but experientially there is only the one me.
I believe that anyone who holds the position of solipsism must have a deeper agenda, answering the question, "So what?" And I mistrust all such agenda. Hence my tongue-in-cheekitude.
The best refutatation is these...my socially acquired words which you are reading now!
(apologies if this has been covered in the comments from others above !)
Comments (63)
You can refute it within itself. Here it goes...
There can be only one and only one solipsist in the world.
God is the ultimate solipsist.
Done.
Asking for a refutation? After all, who are you asking?
I find it impossible to refute.
If solipsism is true, then why would it seem like I am just another human with a mind in the world? How and why would this illusion of a world with other minds exist?
Yeah, basically "If solipsism is true, then only I exist or at least I can only know that I exist. But I don't believe this. So either solipsism isn't true or no one believes it, no one believes there's any good reason to entertain it, and so there's no reason to worry about it/waste any time on it."
I do NOT know that you exist, Harry.
You may be part of an illusion attempting to make me think there is no illusion.
But there is NO way for me to know I am conversing with a "you"...or just having a conversation with myself in an illusion in which I am the only being.
Being solipsistic, by the way, does not mean denying that others exist. It simply means that I can only KNOW that I exist. You may actually exist. I cannot know it. I cannot know my wife exists...or my closest friends. But, of course, they may.
Solipsism merely acknowledges what we can know...in the truest sense.
This is usually just skepticism, if you're emphasis is on the knowledge.
[quote=wikipedia]
As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. This extreme position is claimed to be irrefutable, as the solipsist believes to be the only true authority, all others being creations of their own mind.
[/quote]
Is the OP's meaning.
I would agree there's no way to convince a solipsist that I exist, so it's irrefutable in that sense.
Many things are irrefutable in this way, I can't convince someone who denies the law of non-contradiction or that there is any truth at all, I can't convince that goading me into writing more than him isn't a good goal, as writing more to express that just confirms to him that I have written more and he should thus deny more to get more writing out of me; it's irrefutable and there's no use struggling against that or making a deal of it of course).
However, there maybe reasons for me to believe other people really do exist, and it maybe impossible for a solipsist to convince me that they don't exist.
You can refute other people's solipsism. You can't refute your own.
For one, there are no facts regarding whether something is good or not. It rather refers to a way that we feel.
Exactly my point. I can't convince you, and me typing this is achieving your goal, but I'm a friendly guy who believes people are ends in themselves and so I help when I can (when helping doesn't impede my own goal of treating everyone as an ends in themselves). I type more for my own ends and in so doing accomplish yours; it's a win-win if I ever saw one.
Hey, we agree on something.
Hence, if you can doubt you are not a solipsist.
But can he doubt his doubting? I think not. To him, all that is real is immediate, and all that is immediate is real, nothing else.
If he can doubt, he can doubt his doubt.
And if he can doubt his doubt, he is intrinsically doing so.
But then he is only doubting, which again he cannot doubt. He is certain of the reality of his immediacy, and nothing else. This is what makes him solipsistic.
There are certain individuals who entertain solipsistic reasoning, and it is definitely worth wasting time on them. :grin:
Please explain. Solipsism is a very particular and morbid way of being.
As you said...
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
If that follows - it follows that regardless if you're a solipsist or not, your doubt is just nuanced certainty.
You really have to enter the mind of the solipsist to understand it.
There are two things that will help to clarify. There is the epistemic certainty, in which I know my doubt is true - that it definitively corresponds to something that warrants doubting. Then there is the existential certainty of immediacy - that what I am experiencing in the "here" and "now" is present to me: viz. my doubting. The first mode of doubting is a nuanced certainty -
dependent on the epistemic status of my doubting. The second mode is a certain certainty - it is existentially bound to my immediacy, and independent of epistemic concerns.
Aren't they both certain and nuanced?
Both are immediate and both are dependent.
Whichever you remove, you would be removing the whole thing; no?
Perfect model.
Two cards. Their relation, and the necessary dynamic (they are equally balanced; by removing one the opposite will fall; &c) are determined epistemically. Any certainty of this system is nuanced, it is dependent upon its particular status (however it may be determined).
The certainty of immediacy is independent of the configuration of the cards, and even of the recognition of cards. And although the ignorance to the objects of distinction (there being cards) is overshadowing, it is secondary to the particularity of immediacy. As soon as the solipsist projects beyond his immediacy, he is no longer solipsist.
But that would mean the configuration and recognition of cards is independent of its immediate certainty; is it?
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
I'd actually stop at 'As soon as the solipsist projects'.
What is he projecting?
This is a broad issue. But, sticking to solipsism, nothing exists beyond my immediacy, which may or may not include my recognition of an object, or an object's attributes and relations.
Solipsim is one of the most complete and coherent perspectives. But, this does not equate to the best perspective.
If Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
And Quoting Shamshir
Then the solipsist, exists independently of immediacy, and is not necessarily immediate.
By that, here's a wild notion - the moment you are immediate, you are not solipsistic.
Limiting the solipsist to immediacy, expels him from, for lack of a better word, the yet.
That is not a concern for the solipsist, unless this thought happens to occur in his immediacy. For normal chumps like you, TPF, and me, that the configuration and identity of the cards is maintained independent of my immediate certainty is essential, and quite fun to discuss philosophically.
Which would entertain the idea, as to the personifications of the Godhead - which are necessary for the Godhead to experience and be immediate and do anything.
I completely agree.
But don't discount the importance of your own immediacy just because the solipsist takes it overboard. Immediacy is the fundamental relation? of the individual. I hold the individual in high esteem. The more original, the higher.
I would never discount the immediate part of my own partly-immediate cohesion; partly because I don't know how.
That immediate part that you mention is all that matters to the solipsist, partly because he does not know how to move beyond that part with any confidence.
The difference between the solipsist and everybody else, is everybody else moves beyond it.
Quoting Shamshir
I forgot to mention that most who move beyond never look back, and that is a tragedy of another kind, one of too much knowledge.
Thoughts?
:up:
Because we're banking on them being convinced otherwise by something they initially take to be themselves?
"Mind", "experience", and "knowledge" become incoherent in such a case. The only term that would apply is "reality".
If anything, the solipsist would have direct access to all of reality, and therefore solipsism essentially becomes a form of direct realism, and solipsism defeats itself, as there are no minds at all. Only a reality.
Then how does he dream?
Shh, don't wake Him up...
My refutation of this idea is simple. Conceptual it is no different, practically, than utilizing the concepts in this world minus “solipsism” . But like any concept, maybe some future experience would make me reconsider.
If you want to live believing something don’t bother me with it please :)
And those who choose to guess they are all that exists...are not doing anything more absurd than peole who guess there is a GOD...or who guess there are no gods.
Nothing wrong with guessing...although in areas like this, I personally do not do it. It matters not what is when dealing with my day to day life.
Bingo!
That's because you don't exist.
You're not entirely made of strawberry blancmange and chocolate drops, so you're not their product. :clap:
More like, we are studying their particular ways.
In theater, it is called the suspension of disbelief.
Your comment is interesting from the point of view of how to chart the path of an individual psyche.
The experience of dreams plays a part.
In terms of proving one set of circumstances to be the case over another, dreams are arbitrary in a way that waking life is not.
In fact, I actually think that solipsism might be partially true. (not epistemological solipsism which is even tricker to counter) IOW perhaps it is both true that there is but a singel consciousness and that there are separate or partially separate consciousnesses. Though this is not someting I can demonstrate.
:-)
Have a nice dream.
A solipsist walks into a coffee shop and asks, "Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?"
That's all I got. Other than noting it's much easier to take solipsism seriously at 4am in the morning while everyone else is asleep than 4pm.
Do you grow your own food?
On the contrary, multiple perspectives are usually a central part of being human. Different ways of looking at things can be hugely valuable and useful, IME.
Quoting Norman Stone
The use of solipsism is as a lesson: no matter how daft a theory might be, it can only be refuted by evidence. And if there is no evidence, there can be no refutation. So, no matter how odd or unlikely you think solipsism is, it cannot be refuted. This applies to all theories which are possible but for which there is no evidence.
I believe that anyone who holds the position of solipsism must have a deeper agenda, answering the question, "So what?" And I mistrust all such agenda. Hence my tongue-in-cheekitude.
(apologies if this has been covered in the comments from others above !)