Solipsism.

[Anonymous No.6631266]

‘Other minds’ may be the most extravagant metaphysical belief in all of philosophy. It amounts to a kind of polytheistic religion where every person-suggestive image contained in one’s visual field is the experiential shadow of a transcendent demi-god who exists in an ontologically independent realm where other subject experiences occur. But even if ontologically distinct minds do exist how could they ever interact with each other? This is the exact same problem as the interaction problem for dualism but instead of having 2 distinct substances there are billions instead. Unless there’s a God to “harmonize” the minds to operate in accordance with one another then any sort of communication is hopeless.

Are we communicating? What does "we" even mean? Just my idea in my own mind that you are ontologically independent (other) to me?

What are your thoughts on solipsism? Do you think it is escapable? What does escaping solipsism look like?

[Anonymous No.6631279]

Solipsism is a prison of a notion. Neither totally provable nor totally disprovable, it's simply a dead end.

[Anonymous No.6631313]

>Why Solipsism is Bullshit
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node43.html

Descartes asserted (as an axiom) that he could not doubt his own existence because to doubt implies a doubter. Everything else, the entire Universe itself, might exist only as a figment of my overheated dream-state imagination, a Matrix-like existence simulated for an audience of One, leaving him, like Pink Floyd's character in The Wall, wondering ``Is there anybody out there?''

One possible answer is no.

It is well known in philosophy that this belief is logically unassailable. How can you prove me wrong? First of all, you are a figment of my overactive imagination, a bit of beef gone bad, as Scrooge might say, so only I can prove me wrong13.12

This (solipsism) is the worst of all possible Bullshit philosophy. It is the kind of thing that makes ordinary people think of philosophers as Jackasses (according to the previous definition). It was the sort of thing that Johnson was once cheered for ``disproving'' (not really, of course, but who cares) in open debate by banging on a table (where he should probably thumped his opponent's head, although that would only have proven that he was a masochist, not that he was wrong).

There ought to be something wrong with it but it appears invulnerable even as it is absurd. What is really wrong with it?

For one thing, it is not terribly easy to reconcile true solipsism with our experiences of the Universe, at least when those experiences include Pain or Pleasure. It might answer one question (what is the nature of the universe) by an axiomatic fiat consistent with your one real empirical observation - that you exist there is no doubt if you try to doubt it, but it is only an axiom when you assert that only you exist. An axiom that is very difficult to reconcile with a number of provisionally and conditionally observed facts without more axioms, this time about the diseased state of your own mind.

Take me for example (since I'm certain that I'm here and you might be figments of my imagination).

If I am the only thing that exists, and the Universe is My Oyster served on a figmental half-shell, then why cannot I be surrounded by beautiful houris who do nothing but peel me half-naked grapes (or peel me grapes, half-naked, better yet) at a whim? Why do I have to plod along typing this instead of just wishing the lines onto the page? You see, Solipsism alone isn't a sufficient axiom. I need more. I need axioms to explain why I sometimes hurt, why my eyes are gradually failing as I age, why I age, why bad things happen to me. Sometimes very bad indeed.

I also need axioms to explain why my perceptions of what is nearby are so limited, but my perceptions of what is going on thousands of miles away through the glass teat of a television tube are crystal clear, complex, different, and correspond perfectly to what I see when I visit Paris, the Parthenon, India. Why and how I manage to be some sort of split personality.

[Anonymous No.6631318]

>>6631313
If all of this is a figment of ``my'' imagination, then I've successfully managed to split myself into at least two incredibly separate beings - the artist that is constantly making up the story that I find myself embedded in, and the audience (the ``me'' that is typing this on what appears to be a laptop computer obviously created by my artistic half). The watcher within that watches the watcher watching, so to speak. Since I never perceive the artist directly, how do I know that it is ``me''?

Indeed, consider the artist further. I run computer simulations of physical models as some of the research that I do in physics. In these simulations, I ``create'' a virtual world of microscopic entities. Each is labelled with coordinates that specify the ```state'' of my little mini-world. There are rules whereby they operate. Computer games played by my children are very similar, at a higher order. They hold a virtual terrain superimposed on their internal coordinates, and have many ``sprite''-based components and characters. Those characters, objects, devices all have independent programmed personalities, probabilistic behaviors, an underlying ``physics'' of their interaction with each other and their surroundings, and a ``plot'' that unfolds as the game proceeds. I am not my computer models, the computer games are not my kids.

As they increase in complexity, to the point where a whole world is perfectly simulated with perfect consistency, the artist itself complexifies, its non-audience ``self'' splitting up among all the virtual selves it creates. If all of these (you who are reading this, and your dogs and cats too) are really part of the artist, and the artist is equated with the audience, then Solipsism is isomorphic to Pantheism. We are all God, split into all that is. Somehow a Western Solipsist (driven to explain why he cannot bring a loved one back to life no matter how hard he tries) ends up as an Eastern Hindu, accepting that Brahma split himself up to create the Universe (one fragment of which is him, all of which is still Brahma and eternal).

, but now you are wise and see the game I am playing with you. Axioms are neither true nor false, they just are. Premises, that is. Logically there are many ways to convert one into another, adding an axiom here, altering an idea there, ultimately dividing by the zero that is their informational content and proving whatever you like in conjunction with an undefined null set. Axiom sets can be inconsistent. Axiom sets can be consistent (or not), but they or the conclusions derived from them may not correspond to what we directly experience (and hence require special axioms to resolve the conflicts, which are then overcomplex and ugly).

[Anonymous No.6631322]

>>6631318
So we see that Solipsism isn't logically provable. Sure, it isn't disprovable either (really) but nothing is provable or disprovable so that is irrelevant. What is (to me, and I hope to you) are two things. First of all, when somebody starts the Solipsism Game with you (where they assert that they are all that exists and dare you to disprove them) whack them upside the head - not too hard now - and cry out ``Bullshit''13.13. Second of all, not disprovable or not, Solipsism is an ugly philosophy. We find people who live as if they were the center of all being ethically repugnant. We consider them to be narcissists, sociopaths, characterological people who want to be the center of all being and are hence incapable of love. We feel sorry for them, when we aren't being terribly angry at their immaturity (all children are born solipsists and departing from the philosophy is one of the main signs of the advent of real human maturity).

``Ugly?''

Isn't this a treatise on logic, on knowledge?

Yes, sort of. However, as you can plainly see, logic is flawed and finite. It can never provide knowledge on anything but a provisional basis. It only answers loaded, artificial questions. So we need to find a practical basis for choosing axioms, especially axioms that we eventually add onto the Obvious axioms that nobody sane doesn't really secretly believe13.14.

Solipsism does have one very important virtue. Since it basically takes Descartes' argument and stops right after observing ``I am'' and before the point where Descartes gets into trouble drawing conclusions from that empirical fact and (for better or worse) is completely different from there on, since it is impossible to disprove solipsism rationally, it serves as a lovely tool for helping folks to see that all the other, more sensible-seeming philosophies, are also Bullshit as they can't even logically refute a solipsist.

[Anonymous No.6631572]

>>6631322
>First of all, when somebody starts the Solipsism Game with you (where they assert that they are all that exists and dare you to disprove them) whack them upside the head - not too hard now - and cry out ``Bullshit''13.13. Second of all, not disprovable or not, Solipsism is an ugly philosophy.


Yes typical reply with
>muuuhhh feeling

the guy days that experiences matter not, then he says that experience matters, especially if I am whacked

the second line is a just his whining.

the rest is whining about lack of knowledge, but the guy does not even say why he wants knowledge


Good philosophy begins with an account of solispsim, where it takes it seriously, to espouse it or refute. But at least not this garbage.

[Anonymous No.6631592]

>>6631313
the majority of the buddhist schools reject buddhism, perhaps, the first budhda himself, especially if the compassion is detrimental in buddahood, it would not make sense to be much compassionate towards the humans, in solipsism, even though I must have a wrong idea of compassion in buddhism.

Currently, we ask whether we can kill the animals, or at least those who cannot feel much, which is a form of solipsism, the one which eases our lives. Oddly, the guy does not speak about this.

[Anonymous No.6631633]

>>6631592
>the majority of the buddhist schools reject buddhism
wat

[Anonymous No.6631741]

>>6631633
reject solipsism of course :)

[Anonymous No.6631810]

>>6631266
Solipsism is false. Proofs? Everybody knows it.

[Anonymous No.6631873]

>>6631322
> Solipsism Game with you (where they assert that they are all that exists and dare you to disprove them) whack them upside the head - not too hard now - and cry out ``Bullshit''

*Kicks rock* - "I refute it thus!"

And then you get laughed out of the debate for being a idiotic retard.

>solipsism is an ugly philosophy

and things that you think are ugly are therefore not true. I agree, this is why I don't believe in the holocaust. It's horrible to think that happened, so I just don't.

[Anonymous No.6631880]

>>6631810
>1000 years ago
>earth is at the center of the universe.
>proof?

Everybody knows it, of course.

[Anonymous No.6631886]

>>6631880
Sorry, you don't exist.

[Anonymous No.6631977]

solipsism is alright as long as you understand that you have no self, that you are vacuity, just like all others

[Anonymous No.6632525]

>>6631266
The problem in solipsism is that now for example you are trying to prove us that you are right. However according to solipsism we only are part of your 'imagination', we do not exist, thus why do you feel the need to discuss with us ? Why would a solipsist try convincing others ? When a solipsist tries to convince other people he is infact trying to convince himself. Thus by doubting ad infinitum you just try to convince yourself.
checkmate !

[Anonymous No.6632563]

solipsism is so 10th grade

[Anonymous No.6632602]

>>6632525
well kek'd m8

[Anonymous No.6632619]

>>6631572
>>6631873
You take two most irrelevant bits from that guy's argument and call the argument refuted?

Besides, by suggesting to kick a man, didn't he just mean to underline the divide between you experiencing the world and you creating the world? So you didn't address even that which you picked to quote.

[Anonymous No.6632938]

>>6631313
>>6631318

That article was awful. But I mean, we could have guessed that when some random professor starts being patronizing towards one of the most important philosophers to ever live (not saying you can't disagree with him, just respectfully).

The main argument is about the improbability of the self splitting into artist, which "hallucinates" for lack of a better word, and the one who experiences.

But hasn't this motherfucker ever had a dream? Doesn't he know about the communication split between the unconscious and conscious.

And his ramblings about virtual reality don't make sense because they still apply even if you don't take solipsism

[Anonymous No.6633301]

>>6632938
from my interpretation of the article, his main argument is that while solipsism cannot be disproven, it is not as tenable of an axiom as it might appear to be due to it requiring tons of additional axioms to adequately explain human experience. It sounds like an Occam's razor approach, although I might be naive in saying that. While we rely on unprovable axioms as a basis for understanding the world, he argues that solipsism is a relatively poor and arbitrary axiom to use.

[Anonymous No.6633488]

>>6633301
what do you mean by axiom ?

[Anonymous No.6634696]

>>6631266
>But even if ontologically distinct minds do exist how could they ever interact with each other? This is the exact same problem as the interaction problem for dualism but instead of having 2 distinct substances there are billions instead.
The funny part is that even if other minds exist, they are completely inaccessible to me a priori. 'Other minds' are a non-issue from a pragnostic point of view: Not only can we not know whether they exist, but even if they did, we couldn't interact with them so it doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.6634709]

>>6632525
>The problem in solipsism is that now for example you are trying to prove us that you are right. However according to solipsism we only are part of your 'imagination', we do not exist, thus why do you feel the need to discuss with us ?
CATEGORY ERROR YOU FUCKING RETARD

THE 'OTHERS' THAT I TALK TO ARE NOT IN ANY WAY CHANGED BY WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE THEIR OWN EXPERIENTIAL REALITY; A FIRST PERSON PERSPECTIVE IF YOU WILL.

'EXISTING' IS MEANINGLESS. I CAN INTERACT WITH OTHERS IN DISCOURSE, JUST AS I CAN EAT AN APPLE. I CANNOT INTERACT OR EXPERIENCE THEIR 'MINDS', IF INDEED THEY HAVE ANY.

[Anonymous No.6635106]

>>6631977
>no self
>solipsism
>others

Pick one. Or maybe 2, depends. But three!?

[Anonymous No.6635110]

>>6634696
but it does matter

because why not torture someone if they don't feel pain?

why love anyone if they can't love you back?

[Anonymous No.6635170]

The solipsist (in this case me) would have had to have invented the conception of solipsism. If I am the only being in existence, and I am aware of this or can come to be aware of this fact by prescribing to the availability of the notion of "solipsism" then I must ask how it is that I could come to this conclusion, when every other conception I have has to be admitted as a product of my mind. Is rationality, the notion of reasoning, itself a product of my mind? Is the concept of "existence" a product of my mind?

It's impossible to truly entertain the idea of solipsism with any sort of justification. I can't just believe nothing else but my mind exists, because my mind would then be infinitely productive and I would have to consider a reason for this, invalidating the fact that there can be nothing aside from my mind. The idea is incoherent. As soon as I try to consider it, it dissolves before me, like trying to hold smoke.

[Anonymous No.6637144]

>>6635110
cf.>>6634709

[Anonymous No.6637153]

>>6635110
many people say that they love pain anyway

what are you talking about love ? love comes after you reject solipsim out of some weakness stemming form an angst of being alone

[Anonymous No.6637156]

>>6635170
>The idea is incoherent.
only because you are not able to stop for a reason, since like you say, you are not able to tam your mind.

[Anonymous No.6637184]

I think when you start going 'But what if something supernatural were happening?' you can safely go to bed.

You are either just a mind - just because - that is dreaming up some insanely thorough universe including the ability to doubt that universe. Or something else exists - either the world we live in or a supernatural one. You might just be this very instant in time (Which is where solipsism would surely lead you) in which case you have an instant to solve the conundrum you are in.

You can't. So it doesn't matter. The question of solipsism isn't important. Other questions of a similar nature might be (other epistemological questions that is).

[Anonymous No.6637223]

>>6631266
>>6631313
>>6631318
>>6631322
>>6632525
>>6635170

The solipsistic stance is a problem and there is no reason to think there is no solution.
IMO The problem of solipsism is the problem of the concept of the self versus the other.
Perhaps after reexamining this dichotomy enough its possible to redefine them or look at them from such perspective that would allow the dismissal of the problem or the realization its only a problem within a system of certain presuppositions.

[Anonymous No.6637226]

>>6637223
Its possible that with our future generated realizations about the functioning of the human brain the notion of the self will radically change or be completely dismissed.

[Anonymous No.6637237]

>>6637226
As in scientific discoveries and their impact on culture and language will make us redefine or dismiss the concept.

[Anonymous No.6637550]

>>6637226
indeed, the humanist will be butthurt since their conception of a society relying on the notion of the contract will be ridiculed.

[Anonymous No.6637676]

>>6631266
>Do you think it is escapable?
yes

>What does escaping solipsism look like?
posting on a message board because you realize it's totally reasonable to communicate with others. if you didn't really think so you wouldn't bother trying to communicate.

[Anonymous No.6637891]

>>6637676
>posting on a message board because you realize it's totally reasonable to communicate with others. if you didn't really think so you wouldn't bother trying to communicate.
it is acceptable to communicate with other in being a solipsist, if anything, it can be spend time.
you stance is like saying that somebody persuaded of his death will stop to eat.

[Anonymous No.6638034]

the best illustration in support of solipsism is the total lack of communication and agreement between people.