/lit/ - Literature

>>20063900
I took it down and hauled the author to an undisclosed location, brutally tortured him, then killed him and dissolved his body in a pool of acid.

you should know better than to propagate society-destroying ideas

>>20063900
Why do people struggle with this concept? Most individuals used to be toddlers, and guess what, toddlers are the most solipsistic creatures on this earth. It's just that you grew out of it, while others stagnated and never really left that stage.

Solipsist = Toddler. Why the hell do you niggers need entire books written about this shit?

Any real book about solipsism would just be a prank book where you open it and a boxing glove on a spring hits you in the face.
And it costs $500.

>>20063900
Unironically my book, the first part builds up a theory using it in an ethical manner to construct a solipsist collective of revolutionaries who are under the impression everyone else is a mindless meat-suit.

>>20063972
This might also help

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Solipsism-Matters-Philosophy-ebook/dp/B085S29DKV/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2TCSPNO0BMDVS&keywords=Solipsism&qid=1647271441&sprefix=solipsis%2Caps%2C632&sr=8-3

>>20063972
then offer it for sale as an ebook, preferably without drm.

>>20063972
Isn’t that just 4chan?

>>20063900
It's weird that this makes so many people seeth.

>>20065287
Sure thing

Just follow the links

disintegrationsystem. blogspot.com

Look in the upper middle part of the page, there is a link right there. I can't direct link because 4chan thinks its spam. Its a safe site
That's 5 USD sir

>>20065346
Is it? If I call someone a faggot, they’re going to get miffed. The insinuation in solipsism is “you’re all not real”. It’s insulting, like being a nihilist or an anarchist.

>>20065396
Need to correct the link

http://www.disintegrationsystem.blogspot.com

Now copypaste into your browser, hit enter and look at the top of the page, there is a link to a tiny site that sells the book. Its 5 bucks here not sure how much it will be for you

>>20065403
>The insinuation in solipsism is “you’re all not real”
Well, are you?

>>20065505
Most people would say yes, they are real. Personally I don’t even fucking know, man :P

>>20063900
>book on solipsism
lmao let me hop on minecraft and write a book for the NPC villagers to read

>>20066929
The only language they understand is emeralds, anon.

>>20065505
I am, but you arent.

>people smarter than me exist
>they thought of this idea a long time ago before I ever heard of it
>but I must be the only thinking person by proof
>the philosophy is a glorified thought experiment
>it pans out and goes nowhere
>also it's unfalsifiable
The "brain in the jar" makes for good science fiction. Doesn't one reliable source regarding any form of telepathy absolutely destroy solipsism? That seems much easier to believe to me.

>>20067217
What makes your self-realisation any more objective than mine?

>>20067260
Why would telepathy destroy solipsism? Remember that Descartes’ evil demon might be simulating not only god, but the demon god creates which you interact with. If you can reach a point of infinite possibility (such as with a human mind, potentially), then there’s no way to tell what’s “real”.

Not logically, anyway.

>>20067366
>I think therefore I am
>I have experienced another think directly
This would chip away at the case for solipsism, but again it's unfalsifiable. Literally the "but what if" philosophy.

>>20067406
> you’ve experienced another think
And it’s the distinction of an “other” that makes this nonsensical as an argument against solipsism. For example, you’re technically experiencing another “think” right now, by reading this post. The information goes something like (me > internet > you). Anything that comes before the (you) is potentially a product of (you). Telepathy only eliminates the any middlemen between (me) and (you), which by Descartes’ logic still leaves (me) as unknowable.

And if you /do/ break down barriers even further, like in my picrel, the distinction between (you) and (me) becomes negligible. Is she the one thinking, or am I the one thinking she thinks?
It’s kinda like Heisenberg uncertainty, in a way. With too much focus, aspects of the measurements become meaningless.

>>20067520
Experiencing direct thinking of another confirms their existence, as they indeed think instead of simply being some clever illusion. If you keep with the brain in the jair, you must concede that there are two brains in the jar. Then the clever demon becomes meaningless, there's a broader reality. If mental barriers can be dissolved then you break the distinction between yourself and the other, destroying the strict definition "other" that solipsism rests upon.
also no picture

Wittgenstein philosophical investigations and Henry Rollins solipsist

>>20063946
If there's an argument that supports your belief system, why didn't you post it?

>>20066929
I do this unironically. Although Dwarf Fortress is better in this regard because NPCs will actually talk about and be affected by the art you make.

>>20067658
No, experiencing direct thinking /doesn’t/ confirm their existence. The premise is
“I think therefore I am”, not “one thinks, therefore one is”.
> they think, instead of it being a clever illusion
You have no way of verifying that. Everything starts and ends with your perspective. If the evil scientist studies telepathic links, and feeds your brain the exact electrical configuration it would receive from a telepathic link.. then the result is the same, from your perspective.

>>20065346
Calling people mindless meatbags is insulting to them for the same reason calling a woman a whore is. Because on some level they believe it. The harsh truth hurts.

>>20067732
The crushing realisation that every fictional entity you create believes in their existence with the same level of certainty that I do (sometimes more), was horrifying for me. Think of someone undergoing infinite torment; congratulations, you’ve sentenced someone to infinite torment. And the worst part is that we can’t stop this. Even involuntary predictions of our own reality fall into this category. If I worry about accidentally killing my cat, I’ve created an imaginary scenario (a reality) in which I truly have killed my cat.
The only solace is that while we inflict untold pain on so many things, we can also do the opposite. Imagine a world where everything is happy - that’s a world that truly is, happy. We take the good stuff and the bad stuff from our own reality, and spin it off into so many new ones that it makes it hard to keep score. But all infinites being equal, all it takes is one to counter the bad stuff.
So make everyone happy.

>>20067737
>"I think therefore I am”, not “one thinks, therefore one is”
What functional difference is there? I'm sure this hems solipsism into a much more circular argument.

>>20067771
It’s a difference of communication. If the scientist has 100% control of your brain activity, they can make you think you’re experiencing another’s thoughts. When in fact, you’re not.

But yeah solipsism is already circular from the get go, so no surprise there.

>>20067800
If your own thinking is violate then you've arrived at nihilism.

>>20067819
Sure, and unless there’s some form of separation between your thoughts and someone else’s, it’s ... just your thoughts, lol.

>>20067847
Oh man, there's heaps of evidence for telepathy, did I break philosophical ground?

>>20067860
Depends. What’s the epistemological difference between telepathy and the “thought” that you’re reading now?

>>20067742
>If I tell people that their subjective experience isn't real they might believe it.

>>20068692
>If I assert that my subjective experience is the only thing I'm certain of I might believe it.

>>20068702
> all subjective experiences are real

>>20068507
I imagine solipsism has a tiered-existence view, where there is the higher tier - self, the am, which is all the concrete your evidence you get. There's also a lower tier, which is what could be contrived by an unknown for you to experience. I could be wrong about this, but here is my case.
>What’s the epistemological difference between telepathy and the “thought” that you’re reading now?
Origin. It seems to me that with telepathy you either concede an expanded self, destroying solipsism, or that the demon controls your thinking, which destroys any evidence for the self. The Descartes demon should control the world you experience, not how you think about it. If the demon begins tampering with your thought directly, you cease to be.

https://www.mediafire.com/file/nc4c3n63l2ifqa4/a_refutation_to_solipsism.pdf/file

>>20069690
I think I get where you’re coming from. You’re saying the evil genius is supposed to have control over the brain’s senses, the inputs; not the brain itself. That’s an otherwise isolated system.

What I don’t get is how that destroys evidence. Even ignoring the fact that solipsism doesn’t have any evidence (I think therefore I am is essentially a tautology), how would tampering with a brain’s thoughts make it “think” any less?

>>20069955
>have control over the brain’s senses, the inputs; not the brain itself
You could think of it this way in a materialist fashion, consciousness is a concept tangentially related to the brain state, but that gets into idealism or dualism. You don't NEED idealism or dualism for this idea, but models with non-local telepathy tend away from materialism.
>how that destroys evidence
It's a philosophical destruction, an idea is rendered broken once you find a hole in it, or a gap in the logic. The statement is still there, it's just "debunked."
> how would tampering with a brain’s thoughts make it “think” any less?
It's not that it makes you think less, it's that the demon would be thinking for you. If the demon arranged the world you experience AND touched how you thought about it, the demon oversteps his bounds. If the empirical basis for your existence is the fact that you think, the idea of another real entity affecting your thoughts seriously undermines it. In other words, if my mind in no could be tampered with by another consciousness, then it is truly I alone and all the world is the demon's game -- if another mind (including the demon) tampers with my consciousness, then I am not alone anymore.

>>20070378
Okay fair enough, very nicely put.

>>20063900
Solipsism is a funny idea. Because its self evidentally as far as you can get without other a-priori assumptions. But it is also incredibly useless.

Wow!
Its just me!
I'm a boltzman brain in the void and I'm crazy!

Solved by Schopenhauer