/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14791447]

How does one disprove solipsism?

[Anonymous No.14791451]

>>14791447
One doesn't.

[Anonymous No.14791479]

>>14791447
Common sense (i.e. by not being a retard)

[Anonymous No.14791538]

We do know solipsism - it's dreams and they doesn't match reality. Solipsism BTFO.

[Anonymous No.14791544]

>>14791451
So how does one reconcile with the fact that it's a unsettling possibility?

[Anonymous No.14791547]

>>14791447
By looking at 95% of posts on this board and realizing that one doesn’t even think

[Anonymous No.14791556]

>>14791447
You can't, but who cares.

[Anonymous No.14791570]

I'm more certain about the existence of God than I am about my own existence, therefore Solipsism is wrong
Obviously I'm not God

[Anonymous No.14791683]

>>14791544
nm, it was a stupid solipsism joke.

[Anonymous No.14791729]

If solipsism is real then why does evil exist? If my mind creates reality then why does it use this power only to create a nightmare?

[Anonymous No.14791778]

>>14791447
>[a / c / g / k / m / o / p / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w] [vip / qa] [cm / lgbt] [3 / adv / an / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pw / qst / sci / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Edit][Sounds] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
>/sci/ - Science & Math
>[Post a Reply]
>08/21/20 New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
>05/04/17 New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
>10/04/16 New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
>[Hide] [Show All]
>Janitor applications are now closed. Thank you to everyone who applied!
>[Return] [Catalog] [Bottom]9 / 0 / 8 / 2 [Update] [Auto]
>File: 1471749301.png (58 KB, 500x428)
> Anonymous 08/25/22(Thu)23:28:14 No.14791447▶>>14791451 >>14791479 >>14791547 >>14791556
>How does one disprove solipsism?
>>>
> Anonymous 08/25/22(Thu)23:30:32 No.14791451▶>>14791544
>>>14791447 (OP)
>One doesn't.
>>>
> Anonymous 08/25/22(Thu)23:37:08 No.14791479▶
>>>14791447 (OP)
>Common sense (i.e. by not being a retard)
>>>
> Anonymous 08/26/22(Fri)00:04:10 No.14791538▶
>We do know solipsism - it's dreams and they doesn't match reality. Solipsism BTFO.
>>>
> Anonymous 08/26/22(Fri)00:13:24 No.14791544▶>>14791683
>>>14791451
>So how does one reconcile with the fact that it's a unsettling possibility?
>>>
> Anonymous 08/26/22(Fri)00:13:39 No.14791547▶
>>>14791447 (OP)
>By looking at 95% of posts on this board and realizing that one doesn’t even think
>>>
> Anonymous 08/26/22(Fri)00:18:46 No.14791556▶
>>>14791447 (OP)
>You can't, but who cares.
>>>
> Anonymous 08/26/22(Fri)00:31:19 No.14791570▶
>I'm more certain about the existence of God than I am about my own existence, therefore Solipsism is wrong
>Obviously I'm not God
>>>
> Anonymous 08/26/22(Fri)01:55:56 No.14791683▶
>>>14791544
>nm, it was a stupid solipsism joke.
>>>

[Anonymous No.14791783]

>>14791778
Mods please dont ban me for this, I tried deleting it but the site wont let me

[Anonymous No.14791812]

>>14791447
go to any public area, preferably crowded.
now rub one out right in the open. you'll find proof almost instantly.

[Anonymous No.14791893]

>>14791570
That really doesn't work though. We assume that there is a part of our own consciousness/self which is autonomous and that possesses a database that we do not have access to. This is usually called the unconscious. It does things like script dreams and present them to the sleeping observer. It would seem that if this part of our own self can script dreams, including the presence of dream characters with simulated 'other minds', and presents these dreams to the observer in the dream state, then it could also do this in the waking state. I am not saying this IS the case by the way. Only that it can not be rigorously epistemically justified that this is NOT the case. It's an article of faith to believe otherwise. I also am a theist by the way.
>>14791812
That is not really proof though. You would experience this scene through the medium of your own consciousness. And one's own consciousness is capable of scripting realities complete with simulated 'other minds' in the form of dreams. And one could imagine such a dream such as the situation you describe. The people reacting to your actions could be simulated 'other minds' presented to you by the dream scriptor in the waking state as well.

[Anonymous No.14791899]

>>14791729
Why does it create bad dreams in the sleeping state? The 'unconscious' part of your psyche has it's own autonomy. You could be a dystheistic god who is a masochist.

[Anonymous No.14791907]

>>14791479
This is not a good argument. In a solipsistic situation your 'common sense' is still just your own 'common sense' and it is fallible.
>>14791538
This is not a good argument. In fact, you gave an example of how your own self can script realities and immerse yourself in them and then you concluded by saying that the self could not also do this in the waking state just because they 'don't match'. This does not logically follow.

[Anonymous No.14791911]

>>14791907
>This is not a good argument
Didn't ask. Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.14791932]

>>14791447
you don't. like nihilists, simply try to murder them. if they resist, they don't believe what they're saying

[Anonymous No.14791977]

>>14791932
>you don't. like nihilists, simply try to murder them
You take the chance of murdering an aspect of yourself if solipsism is true.

[Anonymous No.14791979]

>>14791911
>Didn't ask. Take your meds.
This is is just an additional non-argument.

[Anonymous No.14791984]

>>14791479
By the way, they would be 'our' meds if solipsism is true. Not saying that it is true, just that the contrary can not be sufficiently epistemically justified or argued against by either me and you. Appeals to one's own common sense are not sufficient.

[Anonymous No.14792007]

>>14791977
you take a chance at being destroyed by roko's basilisk by thinking about it :^)

[Anonymous No.14792013]

>>14791447
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/

[Anonymous No.14792385]

>>14791893
well if the other perceived personalities beat you to death and i read about it which means you are no longer there to experience it.

[Anonymous No.14792441]

Doesn't the very fact that the concept of solipsism can be conceived lead to it disproving itself?
Especially since the concept existed before you yourself conceived of it

[Anonymous No.14792442]

>>14792385
In a solipsistic situation, if it were only your mind as the observer, 'I' as an actual non-simulated other mind would not have been there in the first place. The only 'i' would be you. The apparent other 'I's' would be simulated minds with virtual avatars created by your own subconsciousness, just as in a dream. So it would just be a virtual construct being beaten to death. A part of your own consciousness. Like if you witnessed someone being beaten to death in a dream. It wouldn't effect me, I would not exist.

[Anonymous No.14792470]

>>14791447
Why do you need to disprove it?

[Anonymous No.14792516]

>>14792441
>Especially since the concept existed before you yourself conceived of it
In a solipsistic situation there would be no reality before yourself. The reality begins with an influx of information, just as in a dream or any other consciousness based virtual reality. So the first experience of the observer would correspond to the booting up of the spacetime screen and other aspects of the reality in the mind of the observer. A back history could also be loaded so that the observer's questions about the past would have readily available answers if the observer advanced to the point of scientific inquiry. Systems of physical laws and equations and histories prepared at the ready as explanations. The virtual trees in the reality could have virtual rings in them which got rendered if the observer cut down a tree. The observer could then infer that the tree's rings represented existence over a long expanse of time in the past years before the observer were born, when in fact the tree is just a procedurally generated thing which is rendered only upon measurement. Or the observer could have already known this was the case since he read the pre-prepared explanation about the age of trees which was presented as knowledge which was inferred by people who pre-existed the observer. The past would be a simulated past. Radiocarbon dating dating could work the same way. Not saying this IS the case by the way, just saying there is nothing logically inconsistent about the idea. This is why epistemological solipsism is so hard to disprove. It must always remain an unsolvable metaphysical problem since our only access to the 'outside world' must happen in the realm of mind.

[Anonymous No.14792520]

>>14791447
You can't
You're just a figment of my imagination

[Anonymous No.14792532]

>>14791447
It's just simple biology and probability theory.
1. A mind is just a bunch of brain processes
2. Saying that there is just one mind is equivalent to saying that there is only one brain (yours)
3. As you are very unlikely to be a boltzmann brain (because otherwise you would have disintegrated by the time you finished reading this post), you must be a brain formed through biological evolution
4. Evolution implies the existence of many brains and hence many minds, so solipsism is debunked.

[Anonymous No.14792583]

>>14792441
I should say with regard to this
>>14792442
>In a solipsistic situation there would be no reality before yourself
There would be know reality in THIS physical universe. There would have to logically be SOME reality before this physical reality. Some one had to push the run button to start your consciousness' interface with this physical reality. So mind certainly pre existed the physical universe. The experience packet that is associated with this physical universe DID begin with the first influx of info though, obviously. 5 reality options seem possible
A. YOU are the creator of the universe. You veiled a disassociated aspect of yourself from pre-existing memories to allow the immersion of your consciousness in this virtual physical reality, just as what happens in a dream. In a dream, the unknown aspect of the self creates a simulation of a matter based world and creates apparent other characters with simulated 'other minds' for you to interact with. The same would be the case with the waking reality
B. Some entity which is not you FORCED the situation on you by immersing you in a consciousness based virtual reality.
C. You are not god but also CHOSE to play a guy in a virtual reality and god complied.
D. D, This is a multiplayer virtual reality where billions of consciousnesses CHOOSE to be born and receive a data dream in their respective minds which gets processed and presented to the observers as what we call the physical world. So the physical universe is made up of corresponding data streams which get rendered to the specs of the players and only to the detail that they need for smooth game play. So reality is only rendered upon observation. There is no observer independent objective reality sitting around somewhere that we all act upon. The physical world is as data on a hard drive evolving according to internal calculations until observation by an observer demands the defining of a value.

[Anonymous No.14792610]

>>14791447
Tell me where you live, I'll come and start beating you and I'll tell you to stop hitting yourself.

[Anonymous No.14792639]

>>14792532
>A mind is just a bunch of brain processes
No it is not. IF the mind is caused by the brain, it is not, but let's assume it is, then the mind is the internal subjective experience that accompanies the goings on in the brain. This can not be located any where in a brain by the way. See pic rel for just one example of why the brain can't cause mind. The brain can't account for consciousness.
>Saying that there is just one mind is equivalent to saying that there is only one brain (yours)
No, it is not. Mind and brain are not the same. And brains can't cause consciousness. See picrel for the neural binding problem for just one piece of evidence against this premise. There are tons of others.
>As you are very unlikely to be a boltzmann brain (because otherwise you would have disintegrated by the time you finished reading this post), you must be a brain formed through biological evolution
Irrelevant. Brains don't create minds. Minds create brains, as evidenced by the fact that brains are only ever observed in minds/consciousnesses. No matter including brain matter has ever been experienced except as a mental object.
>Evolution implies the existence of many brains and hence many minds, so solipsism is debunked.
Evolution is not needed to explain a single mind. See here
>>14792516
You are simply making inferences about things which can not be verified to have occurred. Like a person immersed in a video game who cut's down a tree with 300 rings and infers that the tree existed before his own birth, when in fact the tree is a virtual tree and the spacetime and any item in it were booted up concurrent to the observer's first experience.

[Anonymous No.14792682]

>>14792532
This is the most dumbest argument in this thread
IF solipsism is true then all those phenomena you're trying to use to disprove solipsism just become other aspects inside the single mind and so they can not even in principle be used to argue against the position.

[Anonymous No.14792685]

>>14792583
or
E. This is a multiplayer reality where the player DON'T choose to participate in, but are brought in by their parents and the reality otherwise is the same as described in D. This seems unlikely though, since free will is a irreducible aspect of consciousness. So we even choose our avatars. This brings up questions of why people would choose to be down syndrome people and such. But they might want a challenge. Or the choice of avatars might be random. You choose to play, but your avatar is a random draw. Or the down syndrome types are NPCs. Or some further thing might be a factor in how avatars are selected and we just don't know about it.

[Anonymous No.14792693]

>>14792682
You know you're dealing with a subhuman level of intelligence by the time you're done reading his first premise.

[Anonymous No.14792728]

>>14791447
I can't

[Anonymous No.14792786]

>>14792728
and that's all that matters

[Anonymous No.14792808]

>>14792639
>See pic rel
>See picrel
That "picrel" is just nonsense. If indeed it was scientifically shown there was no possible neural explanation of how vision works, you would have discovered some new laws of physics and biology and should be ready to accept your nobel prize. Obviously, that's not the case and that author is suffering from severe delusions.
>Brains don't create minds. Minds create brains
Lol. Meds >>>/x/

>>14792682
>IF solipsism is true
Are you retarded? Why would you assume solipsism to prove solipsism is true? If you want to make a convincing argument, you're supposed to start with a neutral stance and show how solipsism follows from that you fucking dimwit

[Anonymous No.14792815]

>>14792808
You're an idiot.
The point is that if solipsism is true, then every one of the arguments you gave do not apply. That's the whole point of the exercise.
If you are the actual only mind, then it is not the case that "minds are brain processes" because all information or experience you have about the "physical" world is not actual real; they are all a grand illusion painted that only exists inside that one mind i.e. you literally can not even in principle use any form of empirical or inductive reasoning to try to falsify the solipsis position.
If you don't understand this you're just not very intelligent.

[Anonymous No.14792818]

>>14792815
>The point is that if solipsism is true
Read my post again you absolute retard

[Anonymous No.14792819]

>>14792815
>You're an idiot
you are not even real

[Anonymous No.14792824]

>>14792818
I did, it does not in any way apply to the conversation.
Let me make it clearer for you: You can not even in principle you any empirical or inductive knowledge to disprove solipsism regardless of whether or not solipsism is true.
If you're not capable of understanding this you are not intelligent.
>>14792819
lol exactly

[Anonymous No.14792829]

>>14792824
You can not even in principle use any empirical or inductive knowledge to disprove solipsism*
sorry for the typo

[Anonymous No.14792834]

>>14792824
> You can not even in principle you any empirical or inductive knowledge to disprove solipsism
I did exactly that using basic biology and probability theory in >>14792532. I'm sorry you're incapable of understanding either of those things.

[Anonymous No.14792841]

>>14792834
>I did exactly that using basic biology and probability theory
No you did not, as has already been explained you idiot.
>I'm sorry you're incapable of understanding either of those things.
You have literally no idea what you're talking about.
All of those "empirical results" that you're trying to use to disprove solipsism are actually just figures inside the only mind that exist and do not serve as any evidence of an outside world or the existence of anything other than the only true mind.
You get the point now idiot? It's not possible to use ANY empirical evidence to disprove solipsism as empirical evidence does not exist.

[Anonymous No.14792849]

>>14791447
The fact that there's objective forces of nature (electromagnetism, gravity etc) and they work the same for everyone regardless of whether you believe in them or not is enough to disprove solipsism

[Anonymous No.14792851]

>>14792849
>my IQ is 85

[Anonymous No.14792855]

>>14792841
Why do you keep repeating your irrational beliefs in each post of yours? I'm not at all interested.

[Anonymous No.14792860]

>>14792851
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.14792864]

>>14792855
I"m not. I'm explaining the well understood fact that you can not use empiricism to disprove Descartes demon or solipsism, which is understood by everyone who has a higher than room temperature intelligence.
You simply have to assume solipsism is not true, you can never prove it's not true by appealing to scientific experiments or any empirical/inductive results.
You get the point now? Or are you too stupid to understand something that literal middle school kids understand?

[Anonymous No.14792871]

>>14792860
Why do I need to make an argument? What's wrong with simply pointing out that you're a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, window-licking, chromosome-abundant retard?

[Anonymous No.14792873]

>>14792871
I just disproved solipsism and all you braindead idiot can do is ad hominem because you got no counter argument, quite pathetic you are really

[Anonymous No.14792875]

>>14792864
>he's repeating himself AGAIN
I'm tired of you. Just see some of my earlier posts or something.

[Anonymous No.14792877]

>>14792873
>I just disproved solipsism
No, you didn't. You've just proved that your IQ is 85 or below.

[Anonymous No.14792879]

>>14792877
Yes I did, see >>14792849
>You've just proved that your IQ is 85 or below.
No an argument

[Anonymous No.14792880]

>>14792875
>not coming up with an argument AGAIN
You still have not produced any argument that can be used to disprove solipsism.
You're not intelligent and it doesn't matter if you're "tired of me", you remain wrong.

[Anonymous No.14792881]

>>14791447
hullo shadows of my mind
what are you doing pestering my and only mine, board?

[Anonymous No.14792882]

>>14792879
Why do I need to "argue" with mouth-breathing retards?

[Anonymous No.14792885]

>>14792873
>>14792879
That is not an argument against solipsism, as there is no reason why the Descartes Demon can not just make the one true mind hallucinate the same thing over and over again, thus making the mind think it's experiencing a consistent external reality.
If you are not capable of understanding this, you are not intelligent.

[Anonymous No.14792889]

>>14792882
lmao I'm so funny

[Anonymous No.14792893]

>>14792882
Why do you exist? Ah right, mommy and daddy were both braindead and had a braindead child, pottery

[Anonymous No.14792894]

>>14792889
It's a honest question. Why do you think I need to prove something to you? It's weird to me how narcissistic trogs think that every time they shit out some 80-IQ take, everybody else has to prove them wrong.

[Anonymous No.14792895]

>There are people in this thread right now who don't understand Descartes Demon
I swear the average intelligence of this board is around 97. It's incredibly sad.

[Anonymous No.14792896]

>>14792893
See >>14792894

[Anonymous No.14792899]

>>14792894
>narcissistic trogs think that every time they shit out some 80-IQ take, everybody else has to prove them wrong.
solipsismsisters... we don't feel so good

[Anonymous No.14792902]

>>14792899
How is it possible that you're not capable of understanding Descartes demon? How stupid does a person have to be?

[Anonymous No.14792908]

>>14792902
I don't believe in either demons or gods. Try someone else ;-)

[Anonymous No.14792913]

>>14792885
Cartesianism was refuted by Relativity since it assumes Euclidean space/geometry is real and correct, that's both wrong and outdated and was refuted and replaced by Relativistic geometry which is one most experimentally tested theories in all of physics

[Anonymous No.14792914]

>>14792908
That's not the point. Assume you are stuck inside a computer simulation and you are the only thing inside it.
There is nothing you can do, no empirical evidence or any form of inductive or scientific evidence that you can use from inside the simulation to prove that you are not inside the simulation or that you are not the only mind that exists. Any consistency that you think is an "objective law of physics" is just a simulated falsehood by the being (called Descartes demon) that is entirely controlling your experiences and the empirical results that you are witnessing etc.
Are you capable of understanding this incredibly simple thing or are you too stupid?

[Anonymous No.14792918]

>>14792894
>Why do you think I need to prove something to you?
lmao why do you think you are not me?

[Anonymous No.14792920]

>>14792913
LMFAO you literally have no idea what you're talking about.
Relativistic geometry in no way, shape, or form disproves Descartes demon as it is clearly the case that the demon can just make you think that any set of laws of physics are correct, but they remain nothing more than the controlled simulation of the demon.
NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE can be used to disprove the demon even in principle.
Are you capable of understanding this incredible simple thing?

[Anonymous No.14792921]

>>14792899
>>14792918
>being so profoundly mentally ill

[Anonymous No.14792924]

>>14792921
>calling myself mentally ill
lmao

[Anonymous No.14792927]

>>14792920
Descartes philosophy assumes Euclidean geometry is correct, this is wrong since Euclidean geometry is incorrect and incompatible with Relativity and modern physics

[Anonymous No.14792929]

>>14792924
See >>14792921. You're 100% psychotic and lashing out at imaginary voices in your head.

[Anonymous No.14792931]

>>14792914
Take your meds, go outside, touch grass, etc. (in that order)

[Anonymous No.14792933]

>>14792927
>Descartes philosophy assumes Euclidean geometry is correct
No it does not you fucking idiot.
First of all, it was KANT who required euclidean geometry, not Descartes
Secondly, Neither special relativity nor general relativity serve as evidence against the possibility that you are inside a simulation, the only thing that exists, and are entirely controlled by the Demon.
There is nothing about general relativity that disproves the demon.

[Anonymous No.14792935]

>>14792931
You have been BTFO and there's nothing you can do about it.
Learn how to actually think.

[Anonymous No.14792944]

>>14792929
>true solipsism is psychosis
that's a good one. I'm becoming a genius

[Anonymous No.14792947]

>>14792944
Show me where I implied that solipsism is valid. lol. You're mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.14792957]

If you're not capable of understanding Descartes Demon you're not smart enough to post on this board.

[Anonymous No.14792969]

>>14792947
I know it is valid, and you, projection of my mind, called it "indistinguishable from psychosis", which I find funny and interesting

[Anonymous No.14792978]

>>14792969
Oh, okay. Meds now.

[Anonymous No.14792983]

>>14792921
Show me where I implied you implied solipsism is valid

[Anonymous No.14792989]

You anons denying solipsism have already lost. You actually tried to use some weird pseudo-scientific arguments to disprove the demon (despite all scientists and philosophers knowing this is not possible) because you guys are clearly dumbasses who don't actually know anything about anything.
Please stop posting. Take your meds and go read a few books, you REALLY need it.

[Anonymous No.14792990]

>>14792983
Meds now.

[Anonymous No.14792993]

>>14792990
:^)

[Anonymous No.14792998]

>>14792983
I have already told you here
>>14792969
I am getting tired of this discussion so I will shut you all up and I'll take a nap

[Anonymous No.14793077]

>>14791447
Do you have any reason to assume that other people are real? If not, then don't.

[Anonymous No.14793097]

>>14792808
>That "picrel" is just nonsense. If indeed it was scientifically shown there was no possible neural explanation of how vision works, you would have discovered some new laws of physics and biology and should be ready to accept your nobel prize. Obviously, that's not the case and that author is suffering from severe delusions.
The author of the paper didn't make up the problem retard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem
The binding problems are well known problems in neuroscience and in the philosophy of mind.

>Lol. Meds >>>/x/
Not an argument. No material thing, including a brain, has ever been observed except as an object of mind. The fact that you can doubt the existence of mind independent matter such as brains but you can't doubt mind, being that you need a minds to doubt things, should give you the first clue which is the fundamental thing and which is the derivative.

[Anonymous No.14793108]

>>14793097
>The author of the paper didn't make up the problem retard
I didn't even claim that you dumbfuck schizo. Take your meds

[Anonymous No.14793140]

>>14792849
>The fact that there's objective forces of nature (electromagnetism, gravity etc) and they work the same for everyone regardless of whether you believe in them or not is enough to disprove solipsism
No, this is not true. You have to be able to get out of your own mind in order to establish objectivity. Otherwise you have only subjectivity. You can't verify if they are the same for everyone else because everyone else and the forces of nature are things that you only ever as objects of mind. That's the whole point. Your laws of nature are just a ruleset just as there is a ruleset of the laws of nature in a dream. Yeah, within the dream the different characters might experience the same ruleset, but there and the physical ruleset are all generated by your own mind.

[Anonymous No.14793172]

>>14793140
The retard thinks that if solipsism is true, you should be able to consciously bend the rules of reality like Neo in the matrix or something. It can't comrpehend the possibility that a mind can be bound by some internal logic that can't be violated at will.

[Anonymous No.14793187]

>>14792875
You can not appeal to stuff gathered by your subjective sense information as proof of an objective external world, for obvious reasons. In dreams you are rendered a data stream as a virtual simulation of an apparent matter based physical world as well, complete with simulated characters with simulated 'other minds'. These worlds are designed and scripted by your own unconsciousness. Complete with a ruleset/laws of physics. Maybe the laws of physics are different in the dream, you can fly etc, but they are still a self generated laws of physics which control the world. Being that your mind can construct virtual realities with simulated other minds and present them to you in a data stream in the dream state, there is can be no rigorous epistemic justification made that this is not also the case in the waking state data stream, IE your sense data.

[Anonymous No.14793226]

>>14793172
>The retard thinks that if solipsism is true
Epistemic solipsism is true, yes. It's true for you as well. You can not demonstrate otherwise either. I don't deny actual, 'other' non-simulated minds exist, it's just that they can not be verified by a subjective observer. See pic related.
>you should be able to consciously bend the rules of reality like Neo in the matrix or something
You can't consciously change the ruleset/laws of physics in your dreams either, which are another self generated virtual reality. Why should the waking virtual reality be different. The idea is not that you are consciously rendering yourself a reality. The idea would be that the unconscious mind could be scripting and generating the ruleset/laws of physics in the waking state. The idea is not that it IS the case. The idea is that there is no logical contradiction in the idea.
> It can't comrpehend the possibility that a mind can be bound by some internal logic that can't be violated at will
I don't deny internal logic. Not should what you are talking about here. I don't deny that mind generated realities have rule sets either.

Feel free to now construct an argument against the possibility of solipsism. You have failed so far. You will always fail. It can not be done.

[Anonymous No.14793232]

>>14793187
Forgot pic here
>>14793226

[Anonymous No.14793238]

>>14793172
forgot pic here
>>14793226
see here
>>14793232

[Anonymous No.14793242]

>>14793226
Nonhuman.

[Anonymous No.14793262]

>>14793242
I am certain I am human. It's your status that I question. Also
>still no argument
You are free to make your revised argument against epistemic solipsism now. Your others were terrible and naive.

[Anonymous No.14793274]

>How does one disprove solipsism?
The only one to answer this question is the one reading this message.
You may read some fancy argument about the difference between your mind and your surroundings, yet that argument still exists outside of yourself.
The fact of the matter is if you remove yourself from every experience outside your own mind, then everything you've learned loses value and is itself uncertain.
If you haven't died yourself, how do you know you will die?
I have no memories of my birth, was I born?
If you haven't been there to see it, how do you know there was anything before you?

With enough abstraction, you can come to the conclusion that the only one to be able to disprove solipsism is yourself; rather than being a human being in society and following a 'normal' path of life, you become an entity whose every experience is unique and unprecedented. An entity that may someday encounter a world completley different than the one it's been presented so far, or that discovers what the world around them truly is.

Now you can choose how you live with it:
-You can have your doubts, and decide to accept your world for what it is, and live.
-You can go down the path of discovery, and spend your life trying to figure out what you truly are.

Whether or not it was my choice I'm not sure, but I'm living the ladder.
If there is another person reading this, then I hope me writing this gives you some confidence that you aren't alone.
Living like this is awful, I wake up every day unaccustomed to life, and I freak out. Everything is terrifying, I can't have hobbies, and I'm constantly hurting the ones I love.

Tldr; You can live your life not worrying about it, or you can buy into solipsism and go down the rabbit hole. If you do, you'll never really be able to separate yourself completely from the world and you'll be stuck being hurt by something you don't truly believe in. Though, living like this may be the only way to find out.

[Anonymous No.14793278]

>>14793262
I'm convinced 90% of the posters on this board are literal bots. It's rare to see a reply here that shows actual understanding of what it's trying to respond to. You will demonstrate my point by doubling down instead of looking back at the post you were trying to deboonk and realizing the sheer magnitude of your misunderstanding because you're nonhuman.

[Anonymous No.14793301]

>>14791447
Assumiping of there being (you) to begin with is a problem.

[Anonymous No.14793312]

>>14793278
>I'm convinced 90% of the posters
I suspect the same. Starting with you.
>It's rare to see a reply here that shows actual understanding of what it's trying to respond to
Agreed. You are a perfect example.
>You will demonstrate my point by doubling down instead of looking back at the post you were trying to deboonk and realizing the sheer magnitude of your misunderstanding because you're nonhuman
Still no argument. Make one or fuck off. Disprove epistemic solipsism. You won't. You can't. No one can.

[Anonymous No.14793332]

>>14793312
Go look back at the post you're deboonking and realize I wasn't arguing against you in the first place. You are nonhuman. Even if you're not a literal program, it's clear that you have no qualia and that your life has no moral value.

[Anonymous No.14793361]

>>14793332
>still no argument

[Anonymous No.14793444]

>>14793332
>muh qualia
take your meds schizo

[Anonymous No.14794092]

>>14793232
I experience two consciousnesses, Schrodingdong BTFO

>t. schizo

[Anonymous No.14794188]

Everyone in this thread is a retard who is misunderstanding the subtleties of the solipsist argument.

[Anonymous No.14794339]

>>14794092
from my perspective, you're experiencing 0

[Anonymous No.14794372]

>>14794339
You're just the third part of my consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14794379]

>>14791447
>solipsism
Just laugh at anybody who takes it seriously.

[Anonymous No.14794382]

You need someone who believes in solipsism and there is none. Whoever says he believes, cross the street without looking.

[Anonymous No.14794386]

>>14794188
feds?
federal agents?

[Anonymous No.14795118]

Sometimes it can be a bit scary to think that there's actually more than just my own consciousness

[Anonymous No.14795571]

>>14794382
This proves nothing. You can get hit by a car in a self generated dream. The dream is one data stream rendered by the self in the mind of the observer and so is the waking data stream. Actually, the observer has no way of knowing the source of the data stream. The idea is not that there is no ruleset in the solipsistic situation or that the observer himself can control the laws of physics. The laws of physics still apply. If a mind generated waking dream character runs over the observer in a car, this will injure or kill the observer. The interesting thing is if the observer will still wake up in another reality after being run over in the waking reality.

[Anonymous No.14795598]

>>14792532
>because otherwise you would have disintegrated by the time you finished reading this post

Sounds like someone took things at face value and doesn't understand relative time-scale. A Boltzmann brain's split moment of an experience due to lack of topological constraints is not bound to be condensed string of a single action. It's entirely plausible for the continuous unbroken stream of experiences of a life from birth until death could be inferred to as the moment or action within the set.

[Anonymous No.14795614]

>>14795598
Schizophasia.

[Anonymous No.14795615]

existence is not axiomatic to human thought, I do not think therefore I am not that I am.


Descartes can suck my dick,

*mic drop*

[Anonymous No.14795621]

>>14795614
Your inability to understand how I commonly articulate myself among my peers is entirely not my responsibility.

[Anonymous No.14795624]

>>14795621
Your inability to talk coherently will be a problem for you if you ever try to leave your moldy basement and interact with real people.

[Anonymous No.14795634]

>>14795624
The only thing being demonstrated is that the associative cohesion barrier of cognitive function is far too vast to allow between you and the rest of the class to allow for your semantic function of rhetoric beyond unfathomable absurdities.

[Anonymous No.14795645]

>>14795634
Ok, retard. Sorry about your low IQ and lack of education.

[Anonymous No.14795654]

>>14795645
imagine using an object root based system to attribute value of esoterics to empirical absolutes as if your species is anything more profound than ambient computational mass.

Abhorrently disgusted that you would even make your framework to such meanial trivalteries.

[Anonymous No.14795658]

>>14795654
See >>14795614

[Anonymous No.14795667]

>>14795658
Here buddy, let me put this through a reductionism filter for you, so I can communicate with you how I would a stranger on the street, rather than a peer in the lab.


"Yeah, weather sure is nice today, isn't it?"

[Anonymous No.14795683]

>>14791893
>And one's own consciousness is capable of scripting realities complete with simulated 'other minds' in the form of dreams.
Wouldn't that scripting be objective reality and your mind is simulated by it?

[Anonymous No.14795687]

>>14795667
>pic related: me sitting in the lab corner banting with my peers

[Anonymous No.14795692]

>>14795683
NTA but it's funny how much your post reveals the programming of the NPC: the guy presents to you an imaginary scenario where everything is mind and your first instinct is to try to subjectively reinterpret it in a way where you are an NPC and your consciousness isn't real. lol

[Anonymous No.14795695]

>>14793232
>none of us
>we are
How many is we.

[Anonymous No.14795704]

>>14793226
>they can not be verified by a subjective observer
Argument from ignorance fallacy. They can.

[Anonymous No.14795707]

>>14791447
just like anyone from 2000 years ago.

[Anonymous No.14795708]

>>14795695
It would depend on is solipsism is true I guess. There are either a few billion we's, or just us. You and you or either I and me.

[Anonymous No.14795711]

>>14795692
Keep projecting.

[Anonymous No.14795718]

>>14795704
I am not arguing that actual solipsism is true. I am arguing that that a subjective observer can not epistemically justify that it is not the case. I have no way of knowing if it is true or false, and either do you. Unless you want to construct an argument. I will read it.

[Anonymous No.14795723]

>>14795711
Why did you feel an irresistible urge to subjectively reinterpret his premise in a way that makes you into an NPC?

[Anonymous No.14795727]

>>14795704
>They can
go on. Explain.

[Anonymous No.14795777]

>>14794379
You would be laughing at an aspect of yourself if it is true. But the op question was not if it is true but could it be proven that it is NOT true. Neither one is possible. It's an interesting thought experiment for the observer non-the less.

[Anonymous No.14795799]

>>14794092
Be careful, it solipsism is true, you are calling yourself scitzo, and you would be right. There would be an autonomous part of your mind which is self generating your reality without you knowing it.

[Anonymous No.14795803]

>>14793444
>>14793332
Two NPC aspects of my own subconsciousness generated reality arguing with each other. What a time to be alive.

[Anonymous No.14796344]

>>14795777
>if it is true.
lmao

[Anonymous No.14796364]

>>14796344
Disprove solipsism

[Anonymous No.14796366]

>>14796364
>taking it seriously
Lol

[Jealous No.14796389]

One of the things that makes solipsism uninteresting is that it avoids falsifiability by construction.

[Anonymous No.14796408]

Its very easy to disprove.

[Anonymous No.14796464]

>>14796389
Because the idea of falsifiability is wrapped up in empiricism which is the theory that all knowledge is gained through the sense data. The problem with that is that the observer doesn't know the source of his sense data. He can only speculate.

[Anonymous No.14796467]

>>14796464
Read that post over and over again until you see your error.

[Anonymous No.14796471]

>>14796408
Go for it.

[Anonymous No.14796480]

>>14796467
No thanks. If you think there is one, point it out and I will respond.

[Anonymous No.14796485]

>>14796480
He wasn't telling you why it's wrong. He was telling you why it's "uninteresting", by which I guess he means why it can be safely disregarded.

[Anonymous No.14796496]

Maybe we're all just one big collective hivemind but don't even realize it

[Anonymous No.14796499]

>>14791447
Well, I exist. There, disproved

[Anonymous No.14796504]

>>14796485
Yeah, I understand that he claims to not be interested. If it were really the case though it seems like he would have just hid the thread and not entered the thread. When I enter a thread it's usually because I am interested in the thread subject or what the anons will say about the subject. I don't enter the thread and announce 'I have no interest in this thread topic', But to 'each' his own. That is if there ARE in fact multiple 'eaches'. Otherwise, to me and my alters our own.

[Anonymous No.14796513]

>>14796499
prove it

[Anonymous No.14796516]

>>14796471
why don't you just use your imagination to make him prove it? solipsistic faggot.

[Anonymous No.14796517]

>>14796504
He's interested in telling you why you're a brainlet. He's not interested in entertaining imaginary possibilities that make no difference by definition.

[Anonymous No.14796523]

>>14796499
That would not be proof. In a solipsistic situation this would be a self generated thread produced by your unconscious. So you are the OP posing a question to yourself, just as your own subconscious confronts yourself with scripted situations in a dream, complete with other characters with simulated other consciousnesses and thoughts.

[Anonymous No.14796525]

4chan is probably the worst place to talk about solipsism because everybody is a blank face with no name
Getting out into the real world and actually interfacing with people is the best way to realize how you aren't the only one on this planet

[Anonymous No.14796536]

>>14796517
>He's interested in telling you why you're a brainlet
He can't even make a case that he is not me, and either can you. You are already making me suspicious that you are him since you know his thoughts so well. So maybe you and he are us and we are you. And stop calling a brainlet, you shouldn't call yourself names like that.

[Anonymous No.14796549]

>>14796536
He can make the case that your imaginary scenarios are below consideration. He did make that case, in fact.

[Anonymous No.14796557]

>>14791447
solipsism isn't real, neither are "reality" or "existence". truth is not mediated anywhere.

[Anonymous No.14796559]

>>14796525
The first solipsists made these arguments to real people face-to-face in the agora.

The correct retort has always been to laugh in their face and not waste your time with such fruitless ideas. Diogenes had the right idea when he "debunked" zeno's motion paradoxes by standing up and walking around; philosophies which contradict or deny observed reality are not worth taking seriously.

[Anonymous No.14796572]

>>14796525
>Getting out into the real world and actually interfacing with people is the best way to realize how you aren't the only one on this planet
You are missing the point. For one, the 'outside world' you appeal to is just a data steam rendered by yourself in your mind. The mind is the only medium you will ever interface with the 'outside world' in. The only people you ever see you see as mental objects. You also see people in dreams, which are another mind generated reality. These people also appear to be acting autonomously and appear to have their own minds. You can even have sex with simulated virtual girls in these dreams and shoot your goo (wet dreams). You can 'go outside' and see people in a dream too, but that doesn't mean they are part of some observer independent self existent reality. And to appeal to an observer independent 'outside world' in the waking state can also never be more than an assumption. And it's actually worse than that, see pic rel. All experiment so far actually points to the fact that the physical world IS observer dependent, though not necessarily ONE observer dependent. Though also not necessarily NOT one person dependent. Which is the question of OP, (which is potentially all of us). Not IS it true, but can it be proven NOT to be true.

[Anonymous No.14796585]

>>14795718
You mean agnosticism? But if you can't know nuffin, then solipsism is as true as 1=2.
>>14795727
Even taking that VR analogy above. If mind are simulated by scripting accurately, therefore physicalism and those minds can be reconstructed from observed physics. Same for your mind, which means your mind will disappear upon death, or rather will remain in the form of VR emulator. Thus we get materialism save for definitions.

[Anonymous No.14796600]

>>14796559
>The correct retort has always been to laugh in their face
You can do this in a dream as well. A self produced dream about laughing in somebodies face is obviously possible. So this is no argument against it and if you do it in the waking state you you take the risk that you are laughing in a self generated aspect of yourself. Don't be self sadistic like that.
>Diogenes had the right idea when he "debunked" zeno's motion paradoxes by standing up and walking around
That is not debunking it. The apparent motion in the physical world is just a refreshing of the screen. The next volume pixel populates the next pixel over on the screen each delta t. So there is motion, but it's virtual motion. And you can not divide space infinitely either because there is no half a pixel (planck length)

[Anonymous No.14796602]

>>14796600
It's not about "debunking" you. It's about not wasting my time taking your ideas seriously.

[Anonymous No.14796620]

>>14791447
>>14791544
The reconciliation is that it doesn't matter:
Either reality is as we perceive it through our senses and instruments, or it's all an elaborate simulation/dream/whatever that is so convincing as to be completely indiscernible and indistinguishable from reality, in which case it is reality as far as we're concerned.

[Anonymous No.14796641]

>>14796572
My point is that it becomes a lot harder to subscribe to solipsism when you're interfacing with actual people, not a bunch of nameless randos on 4chan

[Anonymous No.14796679]

>>14796585
>But if you can't know nuffin
Didn't say that. There are certain questions that can not be answered from within the system. Some day after I am no longer immersed in this subset of reality I will know.
> If mind are simulated by scripting accurately, therefore physicalism and those minds can be reconstructed from observed physics
It's not mind that is simulated, the physical world is ie things in spacetime. In this case, spacetime would be virtual and and emergent within minds. So the physical world would be the virtual thing, the mind would be the 'real' thing. Minds can't be calculations, as godel well knew. The physical world can be though, as konrad zuse and others knew.
>Same for your mind, which means your mind will disappear upon death
No, my physical matter avatar body will disappear. The consciousness will not. The experience packet gained from this iteration will be added to the individuated unit of consciousness' aggregate quality of consciousness from past missions. Consciousnesses don't die when one bio- iteration is over anymore than your consciousness dies when your character dies in a video game. The constraints on consciousness imposed during the iteration/experience packet are lifted. So if you got dementia as you got older, that will be lifted and you will be anew. If you had chronic pain, that is gone. All constraints associated with your current avatar, lifted. The blind sees again. The retarded person ceases being retarded.
>Thus we get materialism save for definitions.
No. Matter is virtual. It does not even have defined value until observation. (see picrel and links for experiments which as underway to prove this even more extensively than it has been proven through bell's theorem and bell type experiments)You are thinking of a bostrom type of simulation, which is a materialist version which is illogical. In bostrom's version consciousness is simulated.

On testing the simulation theory
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00058.pdf

[Anonymous No.14796683]

>>14791447
You keep on digging (asking questions to the answers) and suddenly realize that it is not the basic reality, and then you agree that everything you interact with is in your head, but then it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist outside of your head, because it is more simple reality if it does, because otherwise some things are too large assumptions to be pulled out of one's ass.

[Anonymous No.14796700]

>>14791447
the same way one disproves atheism

[Anonymous No.14796712]

>>14796602
So you have no argument in other words, gotcha. Don't feel bad, nobody can disprove epistemic solipsism. wittgenstein certainly failed hard. I can't disprove it. Actually, I believe that I could disprove it, but it leads to a situation which includes me being the creator of the universe (god), and I don't think I am up to the task (the task of being god that is). And you could also come to this conclusion, IF you are indeed not me. Otherwise, if I am god, then so are you. If you want to know the possible solution to solipsism I will tell you. It will lead to you potentially being unable to disprove that you are god as opposed to not being able to disprove you are simply the only entity.

[Anonymous No.14796736]

>>14791447
Voltage gap

[Anonymous No.14796757]

>>14791447
we are all nothing more than projections of god

[Anonymous No.14796785]

>>14796700
This is getting close to the solution. Solipsism ends up collapsing to theism. Unfortunately, there is no way to prove that you are not god. It MIGHT be the case that a "not you god" is simulating both your dream data stream and your waking data stream. In this case there would be at minimum 2 entities, a 'god mind' and a 'you mind'. This could be an omniscient type of god. Or, it could be that you dissociated an individuated piece of your mind to subject to a virtual reality. You veiled your previous knowledge base upon immersion in the current reality for the time being. So even though the dissociated mind was part of god mind, it would still technically be two minds because the one dissociated mind is certainly not the same entity as the omniscient god mind. You don't have access to the 'omniscient god data base'. Two data bases. Two entities minimum. two minds minimum. So two minds of the same substance. This might be scratching the surface of how the trinity works.
In this situation you would be technically god, being of the same god substance fundamentally, but two entities also. And there would be a 'not you'. You would also have to accept the fact that your subconsciousness might be a 'not you' either. If you define different data bases as different entities, then your unconscious is a separate entity, and is the almightly god potentially.Your subconscious would be god and you would be god and not god and perhaps even a trinity. You would also be the physical avatar body that you play in the game (physical world) as well. The individuated piece of the god mind would be the god the holy spirit, the avatar body would be god the the son, who came into the world to experience death, and the omniscient god would be god the father. All the same substance but three different entities. You would be made in the tripartate image of god. And if this is a multiplayer game, which I have faith, not proof that it is, we are all made in the image of god.

[Anonymous No.14796790]

>>14796757
It's looking that way. See here
>>14796785

[Anonymous No.14796798]

>>14796785
>trapped in duality
nah bro it’s all god
atheists are god gaslighting god of his own nonexistence
the beauty of god world is that it appears to us that we have choice, when the factual matter is we are helpless on the conveyer belt of our destiny

[Anonymous No.14796807]

I just find it crazy that we're able to have a concept of mind purely through biochemical processes
There's gotta be something more to that

[Anonymous No.14796827]

>>14796798
Technically, yes, everything must be nested 'in' the god mind. My connection to god is at the being level anyways so I don't worry about getting there through intellection anways. It's not possible for me to NOT believe in god. And I realize my place within the subset and my constraints on knowledge of the bigger picture. But it is a good exercise to carry these concepts threw as far as you can get through reason as well.

[Anonymous No.14796844]

>>14791447
Touch my nose! I'm real!

[Anonymous No.14797191]

>>14796827
>>14796827
cognition is fun sure but really it’s about like becoming denser in the moment or deepening the relationship to the connection with the moment
as far as i can tell it’s completely beyond all comprehension but its not like i’ve managed to stop thinking about it

[Anonymous No.14797224]

>>14797191
or with every answer comes more questions
i’d say something exists between us and god, this would be jesus, but also angels and demons, to qualify
like the tone of voice we choose, we choose which energetic being to bring into existence, but we don’t define what energies exist, we only choose which ones can be brought in to existence through us and our choices
tone of voice is not some arbitrary thing, it changes the meaning of phrases, people will not listen and learn from someone unless they sound like a professor or a newscaster, but nobody decided what that sounds like
when you’re angry you sound angry because you are angry, channeling the general spirit of anger, the energetic being of anger, which is made real by us and vice versa
we have all the power and none of it and it’s so big
the eternal recurrence meme is stupid, as far as i’m concerned any form of desire has a place in existence so i can’t see why i’d be stuck reliving the same life when i could experience the totality of existence over the totality of time, but without reducing to homogenous infinity, it somehow maintains its variety and each of us has a place and a purpose. we aren’t all the same but we are all together it’s very big
perhaps we spent time in other forms, or eras, got bored, and came here
if we are here now, its because we chose to be so because we wanted to, we didn’t want to live in the future of pure good, we wanted to experience this time today for whatever reason we wanted

[Anonymous No.14798001]

>>14797224
you're an idiot

[Anonymous No.14798368]

>>14798001
you’re so smart

[Anonymous No.14798569]

>>14791447
The kind of solipsism which is completely indistinguishable from your alternative candidates for the nature of reality has no practical consequences and there could be no possible evidence in favor of it.

On the other hand, if there was an actual difference between solipsism and the alternatives one could use it to determine whether or not solipsism was correct.

Your question implies that you think solipsism is indistinguishable from your alternative conception of reality. In that case, your worry is about the "true nature" of reality but independent of any single measurable fact about the real world, and the real problem is that you've convinced yourself to worry about something that is literally inconsequential.

[Anonymous No.14798601]

>>14791447
you can't really disprove it, but sometimes one should just refer to the principle of sufficient reason
it seems far more likely that the physical world has a reality independent of our minds, and there is no convincing reason to believe otherwise
furthermore, one could apply a pascal-esque arguemnt: the consequences of rejecting the existence of the external world and living your life according to that are potentially much worse than the alternative

[Anonymous No.14798722]

>>14798601
>it’s more likely i’m in control of my life than i’m a puppet
that’s not an argument, that’s a baseless opinion that is comfortable to believe >>14798601
>pascalesque
pascal was a deeply religious believer of god and destiny, maybe read his works before you go around using him to justify your bland flavor of atheism

[Anonymous No.14799357]

>>14791899
>You could be a dystheistic god who is a masochist
That's a contradiction. If you were masochistic, you wouldn't have control. If you were a god, you would have full control and be omnipotent. Pick one or the other

[Anonymous No.14799374]

>>14792808
>Meds

[Anonymous No.14799387]

>>14792808
>don’t assume it’s true
you must be a shill because that’s how proof by contradiction works

[Anonymous No.14799395]

>>14791447
men

[Anonymous No.14799801]

>>14798722
>that’s not an argument, that’s a baseless opinion that is comfortable to believe
fine, but the point is there is no convincing argument to the contrary. moreover, the point was also that we have no reason to believe our senses are more deceptive than we already know they are. it seems to be more absurd that the world is a purely mental construct or some kind of deceit than for the world to just exist, and we at least partially experience it as it is. this is a simple application of okkam's razor.
you don't have to agree, but the very point of the argument, which you claim isn't an argument, is that you also yourself are unable to provide an argument
>pascal was a deeply religious believer of god and destiny, maybe read his works before you go around using him to justify your bland flavor of atheism
bizarre comment. my point has absolutely nothing to do with atheism. solipsism isn't a religious viewpoint, if anything it's a particularly unreligious one.
to explain my point: since there is no way of proving or refuting solipsism, some might view it as 50/50 either way. now, living your life as if solipsism is untrue, then later on discovering that it is true, does not leave you in a particularly devestating position. the converse is less likely to be so.

[Anonymous No.14799876]

>>14791447
I told a therapist I used to talk to about solipsism and she used it to diagnose me with subclinical narcissism

[Anonymous No.14800751]

Don't live your life with a negative perspective.
Solipsism cannot be disproved but it can't be proven either.
Or maybe it eventually will be once technology gets good enough

[Anonymous No.14800821]

>>14799801
ok you deny similar patterns across multiple scales? the whole galactic clusters appearing similar as clusters of neurons? is that organization so happenstance?
truth is an undeniable reality to the subject, objective truth is something universally agreed, what is universal is shared experience
but if you haven’t explored your body’s relationship to the physical world through movement, you haven’t had the experiences necessary to form a personal relationship with the organizational principles relating the movement of the bodies joints to the formation of ocean waves to the organization of the spectrum of musical tone to the motions the body makes when drumming with sticks to motions of swimming strokes
these are all the same, yet if you don’t participate in athletics and music you would never know
which is your problem
the beauty is obvious to the beholder
i guess my question for you is do you believe people are capable of genuine creation, or is all that has been created already there, and people merely bring things from the space of potential into the space of actual

[Anonymous No.14800912]

>>14791544
"Deal with it".

I've had full ego death, the singular-ness is different from solipsism. I can't explain it really, but whether or not you see from your eyes becomes completely and entirely irrelevant. It literally does not matter, if you do or not the absolute singularity of us is strongly known.

Usual solipsism is thought about because the ego is in tact. So you aren't actually perceiving from the perspective of the tree on which all leaves grow, but from the perspective of believing you are a leaf on that tree. When everything becomes one unit of reality, having "points of view" is no longer relevant at all.

Maybe that's helpful.

[Anonymous No.14800916]

>>14791447
>solipsism
where do babies come from?

[Anonymous No.14801886]

>>14791544
By recognizing that it is a stupid and silly possibility like considering that you are potentially just a sentient fart cloud.

[Anonymous No.14802311]

>>14791447
By simply not being an idiot.

[Anonymous No.14802348]

>>14791812
Based and Diogenes-pilled.

[Anonymous No.14805169]

>>14791447
You don't. You just have to feel like it is wrong. You have to know it in your heart, not your brain.

It's poetic how the final arbiter of knowledge (and by extension, your subjective experience) is also the very thing that makes us human, and life: the indefinitive. The empathic. The procedural.

[Anonymous No.14806665]

>>14791447
By reading Husserl and studying his Phenomenology.

[Anonymous No.14806983]

>>14791447
You need to define it first.