Logically Impeccable
I heard it said that solipsism can't be refuted because it's logically impeccable, but does that make it true?
I heard that a statement can be logically valid but not true and that truth isn't the same as validity? Is that what they mean by solipsism, that it's logically perfect but it can't be known to be true?
I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept.
I heard that a statement can be logically valid but not true and that truth isn't the same as validity? Is that what they mean by solipsism, that it's logically perfect but it can't be known to be true?
I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept.
Comments (75)
How's this for logic? Prejudice blocks our minds from "an area we have yet to consider." :cool:
Of Superposition and Solipsism : Indeed, an answer to the mind-body problem might come from an area we have yet to consider.
https://prizedwriting.ucdavis.edu/superposition-and-solipsism-survey-quantum-mechanical-approaches-addressing-%E2%80%9C-hard-problem%E2%80%9D
Can you both intend X and intend not-X at the same time and in the same respect?
I take it that you have on occasion had your intentions obstructed by what you experience to be the intentions of others. If there are no others, then your answer to this question could only be “yes”. Yet so answering results in a) inconsistency with your own experiences and b) a logical lack of validity to any assertion imaginable (such as via the principle of explosion).
Ergo, other selves are.
One should add, as well as an impartial reality that is not of your will’s making and will thereby obstruct some of your intentions were you to hold these.
Point being, solipsism is not logically impeccable.
Don't be so negative. Why not reflect on how the absurdity of being the only being in the universe is really really fun?
If all others beings are mere projections from yourself, they are no less significant, and possibly more so since the solipsist would understand them to be immediately himself. In fact all other beings would have no existence external to the solipsists immediacy, making immediacy of utmost importance.
I suppose speculative thinking is a terrifying prospect to the solipsist. His uncertainty must be so immensely unbearable that he actually turns to the very projections from his own mind to give himself the illusion of contentment (delusion?), that is: because his projection says "it is so", then "it is so", and so it is.
Also that article is useless, it's essentially a long winded way of saying "I don't know". Neuroscience is already getting to the point of solving consciousness, QM has no role in this.
Also for an article that has solipsism in the title it appears nowhere in the actual article.
https://askaphilosopher.org/2012/08/22/can-there-be-certainty-outside-my-currently-observed-world/
Solipsism being true would not be fun. It would lead to despair and tragedy as one would become keenly aware that they are "It".
I'm not entirely sure how that logic checks out, is there a way to expand on that?
You haven’t answered the question I posed. Expressed somewhat differently: Can you both intend X and not intend X at the same time and in the same respect?
It an important question. If there is either experiential or logical uncertainties about the answer, please explain where this uncertainty could possibly come from.
If no rational doubts occur for the issue, then you have yourself certainty (both experiential and logical) that when others appear to thwart your intentions it is in fact not yourself who is doing so.
Given that a self is at minimum a locus of awareness - i.e., a first-person point of view - which furthermore intends stuff, and given the aforementioned certainty, then via entailment you also hold the certainty that other selves occur. Just as their awareness of you is not your awareness of yourself, so too (and more pivotally to the argument I'm presenting) their intentions are not your intentions. Therefore, there occur other selves: loci of awareness and intention other than yourself.
I should also add, there’s massive amounts of equivocation that can and does occur in relation to what a self is. So, prior to engaging in discussions about the notion of a “sole self”, can you also please elaborate on what a self is to you. This especially if you disagree with the minimalist definition I've provided.
As to the link you’ve posted, I’m not much interested in what others say about the matter; both lies and bullshit can be expressed by others and neither should be believed. I’m interested in what your own experiences and logic have to say about the matter.
I'll further address your questions on the condition that you first address mine.
I know there is the argument of P-Zombies, but if I never heard of the term it would not be my first reaction to a new world. Neither would that the world is my creation.
But as to intending both X and not X:
"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."
"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."
It's not really what I think about it but what others say about it. I don't want to believe it but it's a select others that say I am mistaken in dismissing it as false or wrong. We can go on about what I think about it, but that does not matter. What matters is the counter arguments I hear against me, mostly that it can't be refuted, is logically perfect, or that I have no evidence to believe my position, or that solipsism is the default.
I'm off to work for now, but wanted to make the comment: So too will some argue that Earth is flat irrespective of what you and I say. Why take what they say so seriously?
Especially when it comes to experience and intention ... you know your own better than anyone else, right?
Quoting javra
I mean yes...but what if my interpretation is wrong like the quotes say? According to some they say solipsism supports their experience. I can't say I agree though. But the point they make about when you tear down everything else all you have left is your own isolated perception. Some say this is Idealism and empiricism taken to their logical extreme.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_quantum_mechanics
I didnt say it would be fun. I said reflecting on the absurdity of it is fun. And it is.
For example, if I were a solipsist, you would merely be a projection of my mind, and I would literally be conversing with myself. What would that mean? Is my existence any less significant or less serious because everything originates with me, and exists only in my immediacy? No, Existence has the same bearing on a subject regardless of its metaphysical qualities; that is to say, how an existing subject relates to existence is infinitely more important than the nature of existence.
How is this not fun?
Quoting Darkneos
And, it is the existing subject's relation to existence, not the nature of existence, but the relation that causes despair and makes a tragedy. As an existing subject, one is effectively "It", and this is the case regardless of whether solipsism is true or not.
If solipsism is untrue and there are other subjects like me, I still cannot directly access their subjective immediacy as I do my own. In this way I am unique and separate. Whether there are others like me or not, I am (as a subject) alone as it were. I think alone, dream alone, shit alone, die alone...this is what existence as a subject entails, even if you are incessantly surrounded by crowds imitating your every move. This senario seems to me to be even more dreadful and tragic than that of solipsism.
Just remember, when in solitude, everyone is effectively a solipsist, or maybe not, who knows?
They are immediate, and whatever you believe the nature of existence to be, is what everything can be reduced or expanded to. It really matters whether your attitude is elimanitivist or speculativist.
If existence is only an aesthetic projection, then everything is reducible to sensation. But subjective immediacy is not merely confined to direct sensation, it also involves cognition. Hence the solipsist, as an existing subject, is not simply restricted to an aesthetic projection, but has an intelligible dimension of cognitive projections.
But none of this is very important when we consider the ethical dimension of solipsism. The solipsist can understand the nature of existence (what is seen and known) in any way he pleases. None of it matters and it is always validated. But how the solipsist relates to existence is very interesting. Although everything is a projection, the solipsist still suffers the consequences of his actions, and must relate appropriately to his projections if he favors a particular outcome. It seems that he must makes ethical decisions, decisions that have consequences as serious as those that concern nonsolipsists.
The fun thing about solipsism, everybody can do it!
That's not true though. Because there are others around me I am not alone. I don't think alone, and I hopefully won't die alone. But if solipsism were the case then it would be true.
I can't see why anyone would do it. Willingly choose to be cosmically alone and shut off from any friends or loved ones.
What about the quantum physics that proves it though?
:rofl: Quite.
But how do you compare the fun factor to other what-ifs? I'm sure better one's can be found, but here's an example: What if extraterrestrials (that they exist is a good what-if for many) teleported the sun out out our galaxy and into another (teleportation is a staple what-if in many a philosophical hypothetical, typically used to gain wisdom (cough) into personal identity issues; I'm here extrapolating), this exactly seven minutes ago such that in one minute's time there won't be any sunlight? In my view, this is a far better roller-coaster ride of what-ifs than is solipsism, which is kind'a bland and boring. One can even converge the two: the same question posed but with everything now being a projection of the given solipsist.
@Darkneos I now find this thread to be more about a phobia (i.e., an unreasonable fear) than about issues of experience based logic. And I'm by no means qualified to address the former. If we'd start taking all the what-ifs we can collectively fathom seriously we'd implode. Life is more than just perception, it is also action. And no, you are not alone. I'll defer to @Merkwurdichliebe and others from here on out. Sincerely, all the best to you from me, me being a different self than the one you are.
I don't think you like my communication much, so I will keep it brief.
I am stuck in England's second lockdown. I will say that lockdown and social distancing is a soliptist universe, crawling into bed, reading a philosophy website. It all feels unreal, communication with characters like The Mad Fool, Darkneos and Hippyhead. Threads about reality and masturbation ethics.
If only it was a dream....? But I am trapped in my own sensory reality of lying in bed, reading my phone, just like you are trapped in your private universe.
Solipsism refutes itself as even a solipsist would distinct between himself and others/things. This makes it unsound - if there was only himself he could not speak of other things: there would be nothing to experience.
"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."
The logic is clear from this quoted post, that all I have is immediate experience and anything else is an act of faith. I even posted a thread that explains the issues with experience based logic.
https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4846074/fpart/7/vc/1#4846074
Quoting Heiko
The thread I linked addresses this part. The solipsist can only be sure that they exist themselves. It's not unsound. Why do we presuppose that we are experiencing a thing when according to the wiki page on it:
"There is no conceptual or logically necessary link between mental and physical—between, say, the occurrence of certain conscious experience or mental states and the 'possession' and behavioral dispositions of a 'body' of a particular kind."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
So again, how does it refute itself because so far the arguments don't seem so strong. You can intend X and not X by simply waving it away as a figment of your mind. Other people are figments of your mind and imagination. You cannot hold with certainty that other selves occur as javra wants to posit. There is no inconsistency with your experiences. How do you know they are aware? How do you know they have intentions and furthermore if they do how do you know you didn't intend them to be that way?
See what I mean? It's trickier than I hoped and that doesn't help when dealing with it.
Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds : A modern philosopher cannot evade solipsism under the Cartesian picture of consciousness without accepting the function attributed to God by Descartes (something few modern philosophers are willing to do).
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/
Well, the "figment of your mind" is just as much you as whiskey is grains. There is something you do not perceive as yourself. So how would it make sense to say it is yourself then? You cannot say "This is me" and "This is not me" at the same time. And the logical extension "There is only me" becomes pretty ridiculous if you grab yourself a chair.
It's also not as ridiculous as it sounds:
"I will begin by saying that by any standard of proof, the onus is on an opponent of solipsism to prove solipsism is false. That is because solipsism is the default stance. You exist, and that is all you can be sure of. Basic Descartes which has not been shown to be false. The best argument against Cogito is that ‘maybe you only think you exist’ but this argument can never get off the ground since this already implies the Cogito. (How can you think something without existing?)
Now,
IT is important to define the different notions of solipsism.
First there is the notion that all that exists is your mind. This might encompass an experience.
If if encompasses an experience then nothing disproves solipsism. Your feeling something bump is just a sensation of yours, as is your sensation of being in control of things when you are. All that exists are the sensations, and they are what comprise your mind.
Mind might encompass experience plus action
If it encompasses action then there must be something that you have action over. Therefor either you have action over all things or else you have action over some thing, IN WHICH case there exist multiple things.
Now solipsism can still hold true if you think the self has action over some of its ‘body’. IF you think that the self is comprised of a body and a mind, then solipsism is still default, because quite simply, the things you experience, the ‘people’ you have relationships with are just part of your body, part that you do not have control over.
To deny solipsism in this sense is to say that other people have conscious minds, but this is not proven and in fact we have no way of proving this. We take it by faith.
If the self is considered to have control over all of itself, then solipsism is clearly FALSE because we do not have control of everything.
So the senses that solipsism is not disproven are:
All that exists is your experience, including your experience of control and of being affected by things that you perceive as ‘other’.
Or
All that exists is your mind and your body. You have control over some aspects of the body, and not others. The body supplies your mind with sensations. The crucial point is that no other minds exist.
A sense that solipsism IS disproven is:
All that exists is you (either body+mind or just mind), and you have control over every aspect of yourself.
This is not true because we simply don't have control over everything.
Solipsism is a most potent idea in the context of philosophy of MIND. Does your consciousness exist in a world with other consciousnesses or is it just your consciousness?
Since each consciousness only has access to its own consciousness, it has no way of proving that any other consciousness exists. Therefor the default stance is SOLIPSISM. Nevertheless this is hard to accept because we see other ‘people’ who seem to behave just like us, therefor we infer INDUCTIVELY that other consciousness probably exists, unproven.”
Solipsism is a philosophical position.
All philosophical positions require language use.
All language use requires shared meaning.
All shared meaning requires a plurality of creatures.
If solipsism is true there is no such plurality of creatures.
If solipsism is true there is no shared meaning.
If solipsism is true there is no language use.
If solipsism is true there are no philosophical positions.
Solipsism is a philosophical position.
Draw your own conclusion.
I’m pretty sure he’s coming from the vantage that, as with a dream of sleep, everything he experiences during awakened states is a waking dream produced by HIS mind alone - with this being rationalized by him via him not having certainty for there being other sources of awareness and intention except for he himself.
One problem to this is that, as with any dream of sleep wherein one interacts with others within the given dream, for his non-self-mind to act and react to what he is or is not doing, his non-self-mind has to be aware of what he is or is not doing. Such that the mind addresses is fragmented into numerous sources of awareness and intention of which he is only one of many. This as is is typical in many an REM dream.
We infer all the happenings of REM dreams to occur within our own personal mind, and this because these happenings are found to all be private to ourselves upon awakening from sleep: others do not share our REM dreams. In the conceptualization of reality as the waking dream one awakens to from sleep states, however, the mind in question is not private to any one of the disparate sources of awareness and intention that are to be found in the so conceptualized waking dream. Instead, all these disparate sources pertain to a common mind - such that the given waking dream mind belongs to none of them individually. And there is no awakening (as a self in a world of non-self) from the waking dream such that the waking dream of physical reality becomes “a personal and private fabrication of MY MIND” that is not shared by anyone else.
So in this conceptualization of existence wherein we awaken to a waking dream, the “mind” addressed in effect encapsulates all the sources of awareness and intention that interact (both human and non-human). Thereby not pertaining to any one source of awareness and intention. Thereby constituting one interpretation of a non-physicalist existential reality that, all the same, is constituted of multiple selves which all pertain to a common mind—for instance, a common effete mind as C.S. Peirce would say.
For the solipsist, there is an insistent equivocation between “me”, a source of awareness and intention, and “my mind” which is not “me” but instead belongs to “me”—such that both “me” and “my mind” are illogically affirmed to be identical. This is as equally true of mind (in whichever ontology) that is composed of both conscious awareness and sub- or unconscious awareness—such that both are conflated into “me” as conscious awareness—as it is in regard to the notion of mind as that which constitutes reality as a waking dream—wherein all others are irrationally deemed to be “figments of my imagination as a conscious awareness”.... Or, else, "my mind's figments of imagination" which, again, is conflated with the "me" that is one source of awareness and intention.
Because of this unsound conflation, they then insist that everything is “me”. Hence, the sole-self position … wherein everything, including logic, can be waived off as a figment of “my imagination”.
But if logic can be waived off as irrelevant, I fail to see the point in solipsists (because there’s more than one out there) attempting to use logic to affirm their case.
Ask yourself who that "you" is in the sentence. It talks of "my mind" but my mind and my self - aren't those different things alltogether? So what does solipsism even mean? "All is mind" is idealism.
Quoting javra
Even in dreams the world you are in is not the subject of experience. It just does not make sense. It takes "something else", which, by its own terms, may not be, and declares it as "one self" while also staying "something else". The "sources" thingy is nonsense either: Here the wanna-be solipsist tries to double himself, but even then: When there is him - as experiencing subject - and him - as the fabricating source - there is again two things: An experiencing subject and the fabricating source. If that "him as" would cound as an argument, then we could proclaim Chewbaccaism as irrefutable: There is only Chewbacca as you and Chewbacca as others. Who would doubt that?
"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."
"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."
Quoting javra
I fail to see how this is unsound though. I mean just calling it a figment seems to be an explanation and there is nothing in solipsism that explicitly says there is an author to this. But for the purpose of solipsism (as in the threads I've shown) "me" and "my mind" are essentially one and the same. Regardless all we truly have is our own immediate sensory perception, which is also what it argues and one would find this point hard to deny.
Quoting creativesoul
It's still in the realm of possibility that it was all formulated in my mind. I heard the private language argument before but I also heard it's weak against solipsism. I mean one could just create all the meaning in order to organize and establish one's ideas in order for it to make sense to oneself. I don't see how language requires shared meaning, it just needs one in order to understand it.
One finger cannot point at itself.
Sigh, solipsism, what a show.
For all the solipsists out there, lyrics to a song that touches upon the issue:
Lyrics from the song "Right Where It Belongs" by NIN:
Quoting Darkneos
Why defer to logical reasoning when it is just a figment of your imagination that can be waived off whenever it disagrees with your whims?
Hey, be or don't be a solipisist, whatever you choose to believe. But, in case you choose the former, do keep in mind that when you interact with [s]others[/s] the void that is your own projection, the void will interact back with you.
There you have it, right in the first sentence.
Read: something else. Not the "system" itself.
The phenomenology of solipsism is that this advocate contradicts himself in the first sentence. True Chewbacca - aren't we all Chewbacca?
The conclusion fails short. It signifies a level of thought where mind has not yet achieved self-conscousness as the being it is. On the other hand the personalizing pronoun tells otherwise and shows the regression that is taking place in that context. Why does everyone just think, that, when talking about a-priori there would be wisdom beyond the obvious.
:up:
... Although, from my way of thinking, its funny (else mesmerizing) how lesser animals are cognizant, (self-)aware, of their own being as one agency among others - this without the use of cogitations, i.e. inferential thoughts - while we humans often loose sight of this due to a sea of nebulous abstractions. This pov is doubtlessly something controversial among the learned. Not so much with, for one example, human children in regard to their pets. The topic is a can of worms, though.
Quoting Heiko
Can you elaborate on this? Would like to make sure that I understand you properly.
Sounds like Puddles Pitty Party - Could that be done on purpose? Seems much more plausible.
Quoting javra
When asking what is necessary for experience to be possible, the answer should not lead to the conclusion, that it is not.
:smile: Personally, I think we each like the stability of our core being - a type of metaphysical self-preservation of the identity we each hold ourselves to have - something along the lines of "ego" when interpreted as the [...] in any statement affirming "I am [...]". Entertaining this concept, then we each desire to hold onto this conceptual identity of being we've acquired via the course of our lives. We, in essence, become attached to the tales we tell ourselves that explain what and who we are. Its no longer a quest to discover what this is but it is already known and must then be safeguarded. Only that different folks hold different conceptualizations of what and who they are. So different folks then abstract different concepts in attempts to confirm (solidify, make firm) their notions of what and who they are - only that these notions often enough conflict, due to being contradictory (relative to each other). And so more such abstractions are then in turn further created for the same core motive - resulting in a massive amount of abstractions that are at odds with each other. Hence the "sea of nebulous abstractions".
So, in a way, yea, maybe it is all done on purpose, as in with a motive.
Quoting Heiko
Yes. I firmly reside on this side of the aisle as well. Got it now.
(posted too quickly so I edited the grammatical mistakes I found after posting)
"Things as they are" aren' t much.
But it is true . The existence of other subjects does not mean that you share experience. This is because it is impossible for one subject to have direct access to another subject's immediacy, in fact "subjectivity" necessarily presupposes that your experience is unique to yourself as subject, and separate from all other subjects. The only place you are not alone and share a common experience with others
is in objectivity. (Strickly speaking, there is no objectivity for the solipsist).
But maybe I'm not understanding you, maybe you can tell me, how can another subject directly experience your death?
How can another subject directly posses your thoughts?
Quoting Darkneos
How does quantum science prove solipsism? I haven't made the connection.
Is it a choice to be a solipsist, or is it just the way it is for the solipsist? The importance of existence for the subject is the same either way, solipsist or not. For example, why would you act differently with your projections than with your perception of other subjects? Both options seem to have identical consequences, whether solipsist or not. There are definite rules of conduct for there solipsist, just as the are for the nonsolipsist. How not?
Hmm. And so ontology gets thrown out the window. I'd say fine, but then epistemology would have no ontological grounding.
At any rate, I fully get that what I wrote in my last post was an oversimplification. Aside from which, I just now realize that its deviating too much form the thread's theme, which might make things less fun for some.
Pure ontology by it's very nature can only arrive at mere possibility.
I find that it's better to just have fun for fun's sake, and not compare one fun thing to another. But it is time to compare, I suppose.
I don't know if solipsism is bland and boring. Comparison is "apple's and oranges", there is no real basis of comparison. They both stand on their own merits, and whoever likes the taste will like what they are tasting.
I like your theory on the destination of the world (don't worry, I won't hold it against you that you evoked "teleportation"....we are simply conducting a thought experiment). But there is a major difference between solipsism and the notion that extraterrestrials teleported the sun out of our galaxy and into another seven minutes ago such that in one minute's time there won't be any sunlight? In one minute, everything will go dark regardless if you are a solipsist or not. It is an event, and it will become objectively verifiable. Solipsism however, is not an event, it is a mode of experience for the existing subject. For the subject, existence is a particular way, qua. everything including that which seems to possess an independent subjectivity is merely a projection of one's own sensation and cognition - one's own immediacy. There is nothing that can argue against an individual who believes that this is "the way it is", in contrast to the speculation that everything will go dark in one minute.
Now you're talking! Let's do it.
The solipsist is living a daydream in the present where there are no objects to 'exist', or events or facts to stand in their place. All feelings and sensations are self-evident and all logic is fuzzy and intuitive. There is no formal language, only a mix of words and emerging thoughts from a deeper source. There is no assumption needed about the past or the cultural and social history of the solipsist living only in the present. Time flows both ways only in the short-term past and future. Epistemology and ethics are self-serving without regard to what might at times be imagined is outside this cocoon. The solipsist is or is-not as the totality of the universe.
Counter-arguments invariably introduce their own un-solipsistic absurd strawmen to be knocked down by their proprietary elementary logic. Realist objects, universals, formalism, or logic are in no way applicable to solipsism.
It depends upon which form of solipsism you're talking about. Like any philosophical position solipsism comes in an almost infinite number of variations. The two most common being epistemological solipsism and metaphysical solipsism.
Epistemological solipsism simply maintains that nothing can be known to exist outside of one's own mind. This premise, in and of itself, would seem to be irrefutable, although, as with any philosophical position there are those who would claim that even the existence of one's own mind is ultimately unknowable.
Metaphysical solipsism on the other hand, takes the rather contradictory position of claiming that the mind isn't simply the only thing that can be known to exist, but it is in fact, the only thing that actually does exist.
What this means is, that epistemological solipsism as a statement about the limitations of the conscious mind is inherently true, but this doesn't mean that metaphysical solipsism is correspondingly true. What's true, and what can be known to be true, are often two different things.
It should always be kept in mind that solipsism in general refers to what can be known to be true, and it is only as such that it's irrefutably true.
Personally...as a solipsist myself, I find that even the epistemological definition of solipsism is a bit imprecise, because the mind can be broken down into two distinct things, consciousness...the realization that I am, and context...the personification of what I am.
Consciousness tells me that I am, and context tells me what I am, but neither of them explains why I am. It would seem that the answer to that question will always be left to either the unknown, or faith,
Must have been your own choice.
"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.
but solipsism does not deny that what we are experiencing is caused by external ripples.. this is still within possibility. It can simply never be determined true or not.
solipsism is logically flawless.. but it is also uninformative in the strictest sense of the word."
Especially logic.
For solipsism there is only one. Memory, reflection, imagination, creativity are all purely solipsist activities. What's wrong with solipsism is the dogmatism attached, there is no reason to accept that there are no other philosophical worlds. For one, subjectivism is similar but broader in that it encompasses solipsism as a special case.
It's more like this:
Solipsism cannot be deductively falsified (we cannot prove that it is untrue).
This doesn't make it "valid" though. Validity refers to arguments with conclusions that correctly follow from their premises. There is no such argument for solipsism. It's more of a hypothetical possibility that we cannot really work with in terms of deductive reasoning.
Contrary to what most people believe, solipsism goes beyond merely cogito ergo sum, because in spite of the fact that I can't determine the objectivity of reality there's still more that can be known about it than simply I think therefore I am. Reality is in essence coherent..it's ordered. But the question is...why? Why is reality coherent?
Why do we live in a reality in which conscious minds are even possible, when the laws of physics tell us that the odds of such a reality existing are extremely unlikely? Is it simply a case of a fortuitous conjunction of the laws of physics, or is it instead a byproduct of the fact that consciousness is a fundamental and inescapable prerequisite for reality? Is consciousness an effect of reality's apparent order, or is consciousness actually the cause of that order? Or perhaps that's not a legitimate question at all, because it may not be that one causes the other, but rather that they are simply two aspects of the same thing?
Perhaps consciousness, and the context in which it exists, are both coherent, because they're simply two facets of the same thing.
So solipsism merely begins with "I think therefore I am", but it doesn't end there. It still has to address the same questions that every other philosophy has to address...why am I here, and why does reality look the way it does? I...as a solipsist am just as curious about the answer to those questions as you are, I've simply left open a possibility that others seem to want to dismiss. The possibility that reality is perfectly constructed to allow for the existence of consciousness, because consciousness is one of its fundamental building blocks.
Solipsism doesn't ask you to believe that there are no other legitimate philosophical viewpoints. Solipsists love other viewpoints. By all means tell me what you think is possible, and tell me why you think it's possible. If I'm not here to ponder why, then why be here at all?
All that I as a solipsist want, is for you to be willing to think. Let go of any preconceptions and assumptions, and just think. There's just as much beauty to be found in a well-formed argument, no matter what its philosophy, as there is in anything else. If you think that solipsists are dogmatic, then perhaps you simply haven't met the right one.
And plainly false.
:roll:
?
I presented the most positive and strongest possible position that I could imagine for a solipsist to hold and to defend against any critique.
But if you are a convinced solipsist then how can you also allow for incompatible philosophies?
"Quoting Darkneos
Experience our consciousness...
Muddle.
If Mind/Consciousness is the only Reality, R, as the Whole/Unity, then its message in our faux reality, r, as its essence/multiplicity/fragmentation is still that of ‘substance’ operating perfectly according to laws as if it were truly substance here.
While there would be no live band playing the Music of the Spheres due to the implementation/messenger of a kind of a recording/transmutation of R into r, via R, the result can be utilized the same, a difference that would seem to make no difference, albeit simulating r would seem to be a lot more complicated than if true substance in r did all the work itself.
It’s such that if I use an mp3 player the music is still the message, regardless of that messenger.
But Western Philosophy sort of dug it's own hole here:
"Western philosophy from Descartes up through Kant seemed to be going in a direction of increasing solipsism. Subject and object became further and further separated, and philosophers became more and more convinced that there was no way of knowing anything outside of them. In the 20th century, Heidegger rejected this notion as silly, noting that consciousness is defined by its being-in-the-world -- its utter dependence on outer objects to have any experience at all. Yet this concept of mind as social relations has, over the 20th century, led to a kind of different solipsism -- one of language. Wittgenstein really paved the way for this with his posthumously published Philosophical Investigations(in many ways a rebuttal of his earlier work, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus). Post-modernists and post-structuralists explored how language and shared meaning don't describe reality so much as they create it. There was an emerging sense that the individual is nothing but a series of social relations -- a cultural construct with no real identity of their own. In this sense, it was a bit of an antithesis to solipsism. Rather than wondering if others are real, the more pertinent question becomes whether oneself is real. But if there's one thing I know from Hegel, it's that whenever there's a thesis and an antithesis, there's got to be a synthesis."
Quoting magritte
Again, we need to be clear about the difference between epistemological solipsism and metaphysical solipsism. Epistemological solipsism isn't concerned at all with what's possible, it's solely concerned with what's knowable. If you want to argue that reality was created in six days, then an epistemological solipsist is perfectly fine with that...no problem. If you want to argue that reality is nothing but a computer simulation, then epistemological solipsism is perfectly fine with that too. Both of those arguments are perfectly legitimate as far as epistemological solipsism is concerned.
Epistemological solipsism is solely concerned with what's knowable, but beyond that, it says almost nothing at all about what's possible. Thus epistemological solipsism is compatible with just about anything.
Now that having been said, that doesn't mean that metaphysical solipsism is wrong. Reality may in fact exist only in your mind, but unlike epistemological solipsism, metaphysical solipsism isn't "logically flawless". It may in fact be wrong.
But therein lies the beauty of epistemological solipsism...it's compatible with just about anything...except dogma. You can believe whatever you want, but you cannot know...what you cannot know.
Thank you, I have only considered metaphysical solipsism which is an entirely different rabbit's hole. Descartes pulled a rabbit out and asked what that looks like to standard philosophy of his day and came up with dualism and Early Modern enlightenment. To today's standard epistemology the mind is still an unresolved puzzle because it does not exist in a philosophical sense.
According to this take, what is knowable needs to be publicly justifiable true belief, and solipsism denies all of these conditions as meaningless. The notion of classical epistemological knowledge is under attack and not solipsism. Solipsism gains its strength from its soundness as well as from being impervious to dogmatic refutation. To say that it is not 'logical' is a fallacy of circularity, it is the critic who presupposes classical language and logic universally for every rabbit hole then concludes that anything that denies this presupposition is necessarily false.
I’m only interested in a discussion if you don’t go about waiving off logical conclusions when they don’t suit your fancy, as was previously done here:
Quoting Darkneos
--------
1) Solipsism is the position that in the whole of existence only a single self occurs, or else is known to occur.
2) An epistemological solipsism that rejects metaphysical solipsism thereby rejects that only a single self occurs or, else, is known to occur; and can thereby affirm the ontological co-occurrence of multiple epistemological solipsists in the world (a world which is granted to be strictly constituted of mind). Regardless of particulars ascribed to these others, though, to denounce metaphysical solipsism is to uphold the reality of multiple coexisting selves.
3) However, the position that multiple selves (be they fellow epistemological solipsists or not) co-occur and interact directly contradicts (1), thereby making the notion of solipsism nonsensical.
4) Therefore, for solipsism as concept to hold any form of cogent meaning whatsoever, solipsism must be one of metaphysical solipsism.
Where do you find disagreement in this?
Quoting Darkneos
I suggest you read the other quote on this page.
If you believe that I've done that then I'm sorry. But that being said, I am going to disagree with your argument, after all, that's what this forum is for, but I'll do my best to explain why.
I don't reject the first premise, but I do feel the need to clarify it.
Quoting javra
That's metaphysical solipsism. Let me quote wikipedia, rather than simply rely on my own personal understanding of solipsism.
Quoting javra
That's epistemological solipsism. Likewise, the definition from wikipedia:
Although it may seem as if these two positions are almost identical, they are in fact substantively different.
The first one makes a direct claim about what's knowable...that my mind is all that exists. The second one contradicts that claim by stating that I do in fact have no way of actually knowing if that claim is true or not...it's an assumption.
Quoting javra
Absolutely not. Epistemological solipsism neither accepts nor rejects the metaphysical position, because it has no way of knowing if it's true. Therefore it can never take a position that's definitively for or against it. Individually, the epistemological solipsist can argue in favor of it, or they can argue against it, but they can never actually affirm that either of those positions are in fact true. As far as an epistemological solipsist is concerned, in such a scenario the only knowable position is...I don't know.
Quoting javra
The objection to premise #2 makes premise #3 moot.
Quoting javra
Since your premises don't hold, the conclusion doesn't hold either.
You wanted to know if I disagreed, and obviously the answer is yes. But I didn't reject your argument out of hand, I believe that your understanding of the differences between epistemological and metaphysical solipsism are fundamentally incomplete.
And likewise, if you disagree with my objections please let me know where.
Solipsism holds the etymology of "sole self". What am I to understand by the phrase "solipsistic philosopher" if not such being a philosopher who is the "sole self"?
As to issues of knowledge, are you understanding knowledge to be infallible by definition?
For something to be infallible it will need to be perfectly secure from all possible error. Can you given evidence that at no future time will you, your mind, or someone else provide a possible error to your conclusion that "I exist"? If so, please provide this evidence via which to demonstrate infallibility. If not, the knowledge of one's own existence is not perfectly secure from all possible error, thereby not being infallible, therefore being fallible. And, if the only knowledge worthy of the term is held to be infallible, then one does not hold knowledge of one's own existence.
I'm in a little bit of hurry right now. Will try to get back tomorrow.
Forgive me for neglecting this bit, but I just find the next part of your post to be so amazingly fascinating that I can't wait to address it. Earlier magritte mentioned the rabbit hole, well this is where the journey down the solipsistic rabbit hole really begins.
And forgive me in advance, because I'm about to completely confuse you, but if you really want to understand metaphysical solipsism, then this is where you have to go.
Sorry
Quoting javra
No, I wouldn't say that knowledge is infallible. In fact, I would argue that it's quite the opposite, knowledge is by it's very nature, incomplete, and always will be. There are certain things that are by their very nature "knowable", such as 1 + 1 = 2, but there are other things, such as why there's something rather than nothing, which are by their very nature unknowable. Any conscious being will find that question to be unanswerable, just as the question of other minds is unanswerable.
Thus there are certain questions which simply cannot be adequately answered, and that's why knowledge is always destined to be incomplete, and being incomplete, it's prone to being fallible.
But the fascinating thing is, that while knowledge is fallible, I'm not...I'm infallible. Now that's an egotistical statement if there ever was one...I'm infallible. But you have to think very deeply about what that statement means.
Richard Feynman used to explain why light travels in a straight line. He said that light, being a wave, takes every possible path from the source to the observer, but only those waves which don't encounter destructive interference survive. What's fascinating about this, is that this means that light, by it's very nature is infallible, it always takes the right path, even when that path isn't necessarily straight.
The light doesn't need to "know" what the right path is, and it doesn't need to "know" about the physics involved, it's just an inescapable product of light's nature that it always takes the right path.
But what does this have to do with metaphysical solipsism, and how I'm infallible?
People often wonder how the solipsistic consciousness can possibly know how to create things that it has no prior knowledge of. For example, how can it create a college textbook on applied mathematics if it has no prior knowledge of applied mathematics? It wouldn't seem to be logically possible. But then again, it isn't possible for the light to know which path to take either, none-the-less, it does it.
So in metaphysical solipsism it isn't that the mind knows how to create a coherent reality, it's that the mind can only exist in a coherent reality. Just as the light can only exist along the straight path. The mind doesn't need to know the law of non-contradiction, or the principle of sufficient reason, and it doesn't need to know the rules of quantum mechanics either. It's simply that consciousness, like light, can only exist under specific conditions. And for consciousness, that means a coherent reality. Any reality that isn't coherent, in which textbooks on applied mathematics don't make sense, simply can't contain consciousness. Because not only wouldn't college textbooks make sense, but nothing would make sense. It's an all or nothing scenario. The light has no other option than to go straight.
Now I've said all that, to say this, I'm an epistemological solipsist, but that doesn't mean that I haven't considered the metaphysical viewpoint, and I do believe that it has merit. But having merit doesn't make it right. So I can't claim to be a metaphysical solipsist, because at the end of the day I can philosophize about it all I want, but there are always going to be things that I simply cannot know.
Why is there something rather than nothing? And are there really other minds?
Well, this is the bit that to me is nothing else be nonsensical equivocation.
If there is uncertainty about other selves, then there is uncertainty in like manner about being the sole self. The two are entailed. So how does it then make sense to refer to this condition of mind as “epistemological sole-self-ism” when uncertainty regarding what is abounds?
As to the issue of infallibilism. I noticed that you ignored what I wrote about it:
Quoting javra
So I currently can't find meaning in this statement you gave:
Quoting Partinobodycular
Rather than asking "how do you know this?" - a very pertinent question - I'll first ask you do define what "infallible" means to you. That way my mind can at least grasp what it is that your mind is attempting to convey. The analogies you've provided have not helped in any way; in part, because it all consists of fallible knowledge.
Well rabbit holes do tend to be confusing, and unfortunately time isn't an unlimited commodity for me. But then again I do prefer discussions that move at something closer to a snail's pace. It gives one time for contemplation I think, as such I'll get back to you when time and inspiration allow. In the meantime don't think that I purposely overlook things, it's just that my thought processes don't always go where I intend them to. In fact sometimes they don't seem to go anywhere intelligible at all.
Quoting javra
Also, as I'm kind'a laughing my ass off about it:
Quoting javra
This sentence has two grammatical typos that I've corrected. Nevertheless, it's unintentional presentation speaks volumes as to a solipsists pov: self without other that is yet conversing with another that is its own self. My bad for the typos, but they're humorous in a way.
Okay I'm back, and hopefully I'm ready to take another crack at this. Your above conclusion is absolutely correct. Uncertainty about whether or not there are other selves must by necessity lead to uncertainty about the concept of the "sole self". But I think that our mutual misunderstanding lies in my inability to adequately explain the difference between epistemological and metaphysical solipsism.
It's metaphysical solipsism that claims that I am the sole self. As such it proposes an absolute that it can't possibly be certain of...that I alone exist. And it's against this type of solipsism that your objection is completely justified. Metaphysical solipsism is a position that's almost self-contradictory.
But that doesn't mean that it's wrong, it just means that there's no way of knowing if it's right.
On the other hand epistemological solipsism isn't as much a statement about what's true, as it is a statement about what's knowable. Consciousness by its very nature, is constrained by what's referred to as the egocentric predicament.
Epistemological solipsism isn't a statement about what its proponent knows about the world, it's a statement about what its proponent knows about itself, and its own limitations. The epistemological solipsist understands that they can never know, other than by faith, that other minds actually exist.
Now it may be that it's better to go around never questioning such things, and instead content ourselves with less irrational philosophies. But for many of us life isn't about simply being content, it's about being inquisitive, and perhaps the most intriguing question of all is...am I alone? And how do I choose to live my life in the face of that possibility?
I’m familiar with both notions of solipsism, its just that I find a non-metaphysical, epistemological solipsism to be a logically incoherent concept - much as I find metaphysical solipsism to be a logically incoherent concept.
1) Again, if there is uncertainty about being the sole self, and if uncertainty about X entails lack of knowledge about X, then how can such a position be logically labeled an “epistemological sole-self-ism”?
2) As to the egocentric predicament you mentioned, an “ego” experiences more than just perception, it also experiences its own volitional actions: e.g., to have your will as an ego thwarted can result in differing intensities of suffering, which is also an experiential given. Which comes back around to the logical contradiction of intending X and intending not-X at the same time and in the same respect as an ego … Something which we as egos never experience, but would nevertheless need to be a known truth either for a metaphysical solipsist (who affirms the ontological stance that only he/she occurs) or for an epistemological solipsist (who affirms that the only knowledge to be had is that he/she occurs, while also claiming that knowledge and what is ontic are, or at least can be, distinct).
3) Likewise, we’re here addressing knowledge, epistemology. And, while you make the case of you being infallible, you as of yet have not provided any notion of what you mean by the term “infallible” so as to differentiate it from what I understand by the term “infallible”.
What you previously said about time being a limited commodity, it applies to most of us. No hard feelings, but if the conversation we’re having in a thread labeled “logically impeccable” isn’t going to adhere to logic, I’d much rather utilize my own time differently.
“
Those who claim for themselves to judge the truth are bound to possess a criterion of truth. This criterion, then, either is without a judge's approval or has been approved. But if it is without approval, whence comes it that it is truthworthy? For no matter of dispute is to be trusted without judging. And, if it has been approved, that which approves it, in turn, either has been approved or has not been approved, and so on ad infinitum.
--Sextus Empiricus”
As in the truth to metaphysical and/or epistemological solipsism. Right. Deep questions that are best not cherry-picked.
https://qr.ae/pNUkcv
"The origins of Solipsism in Western Philosophy comes from the Greek Pre-Socratic Sophist Gorgias who claimed that:
Nothing exists.
Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it.
Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it cannot be communicated to others."
This sounds more like the epistemological version of the argument but I can't say I agree that there is NO reason to believe other people are other minds considering they act and behave like we do, and I would imagine that the OP knows this if they posted it on a forum (otherwise such a comment would be moot). I also have a reason to believe the external world will continue to exist without me experiencing it since plenty of stuff happens without me being aware of it. I fail to understand how these people think that solipsism is the simplest explanation when thinking about it a lot shows all the holes.
This sentiment however seems...interesting. I thought that language described reality but thinking about it now I can see how in some instances it can shape it. Simply exchanging one word for another can shift everything, I mean...it happens in politics all the time.