Can you prove solipsism true?

Quoting Darkneos

Can you prove solipsism true?

Who are you asking?

(I kinda take this to be a proof that is it false...)

Reply to Banno :smirk:

Reply to 180 Proof I've used that reply so many times over the years that it's not worth a smirk.

The second premise in the argument on Quora assumes the conclusion:

Other things have a third person point of view in my world

This assumes that there is only my view of how things are.

Reply to Banno :smirk:

Quoting 180 Proof

:smirk:

At least you are consistent.

Reply to Banno I thought that proof was sketchy. It assumes way too much and the steps don’t even lead to each other.

So I’m wondering what kind of “proof” it’s supposed to be

Quoting Darkneos

I thought that it's unproveable like the simulation hypothesis because there's no way to get outside of it to know for sure.

I think you're right. Solipsism is like the simulation hypothesis. If you are correct that they are unprovable, and I think you are, then they're metaphysics, not science. You're fairly new here. I don't know if you've heard my metaphysics spiel, which is similar to that described by R.G. Collingwood in his "Essay on Metaphysics." Metaphysical statements are not true or false. They have no truth value. They are the underlying assumptions, Collingwood called them "absolute presuppositions," that underlie our understanding of the nature of reality. They are the foundations of science.

Quoting Darkneos

So I’m wondering what kind of “proof” it’s supposed to be

Generally proofs of this sort are muddled improvisations in the rationalist or scholastic style.

Arguments for idealism and solipsism take it as granted that statements are beliefs, that "The kettle is boiling" is the same as "I believe that the kettle is boiling". They make the error of thinking that the game of truth and falsity is the same as the game of belief. But one can believe things that are wrong, believe that the kettle is boiling when it isn't.

That we are sometimes wrong, that we learn new things, that the world contains surprises, that we feel embarrassment, pride, shame... these things display the error in solipsism.

Reply to T Clark I think Watkins account in Confirmable and influential metaphysics the better.

Quoting Banno

I think Watkins account in Confirmable and influential metaphysics the better.

I am not familiar with it. There are many approaches to metaphysics. Given my strong attachment to the views of Collingwood, what does Watkins have to offer.

Quoting T Clark

I am not familiar with it.

I had Reply to Darkneos rather than you in mind, sorry. It's an approach after Popper, so based on received notions of scientific method, and in a more concise and readily available form. It also, from what I've read of Collingwood, it appears to take a more logically formal approach.

But both swings and roundabouts take us back to where we started.

Solipsism is true in the sense of what is 100% certain - our own existence. If you lower the bar to may exist, solipsism is no longer as strong a position.

I started a thread a few months ago about my belief that others exist for sure, but not me à la Cotard's delusion (the mirror image of Descartes' cogito).

Quoting Agent Smith

Solipsism is true in the sense of what is 100% certain - our own existence.

You do realise that that's not what solipsism says, Smith? Not I exist, but I alone exist.

Quoting Banno

You do realise that that's not what solipsism says, Smith? Not I exist, but I alone exist

:ok: I didn't know, but can you review Cartesian skepticism and get back to me if you find anything interesting.

Reply to Darkneos

A Deuteronomy of Kant-Friesian Metaphysics

When the Neo-Kantians, or Hegel, eliminated things in themselves, the result was directly, starkly, and unambiguously solipsism. Hegel avoided that only by making consciousness collective and universal, an "Over Mind," the "Absolute Idea," in which individual existence dissolves like sugar in coffee.
The sticking point is the conclusion that Kant's theory forces upon us, that the "real things" of the world are both external objects and the internal contents of consciousness.

Here's my proof of solipsism

1. Only things that we're 100% certain exists exist.
2. The only thing I'm 100% certain exists is me (re cogito).
Ergo,
3. I alone exist.

QED

:lol:

P. S. I suffer from Cotard's delusion (I don't exist).

Proving solipsism true is anti-solipsistic. Philosophy deals with intersubjective agreement of other minds. That there is 'intersubjective agreement', or none, does not negate solipsism, as a multiplicity of subjectivities does not preclude the primacy of the origin of them all.

That being in a solipsistic state causes the other intersubjectives to 'come get you /poison you' does not disprove solipsism, just perhaps that you are not god/ originator of all law. That intersubjectives are anti-solipsistic does not prove they are expressing god's will, but is perhaps the fundamental lesson of this experience which all philosophy seems to be about.

Another proof that I alone exist.

1.The 3 marks of existence are anicca (impermanence), anatta (no-self), and dukkha (suffering).
2. I alone bear these 3 marks[sup]A[/sup]
Ergo,
3. I alone exist

QED

A: Some are anicca but neither anatta nor dukkha; others are anatta but neither anicca nor dukkha; still others are dukkha but neither anicca nor anatta. In no person/thing in our universe do the 3 marks of existence instantiate simultaneously except in me. :grin:

:lol:

Another another proof of solipsism ( :smile: )

[quote=William of Occam]Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate[/quote]

Ergo,

Ego solus est.

Reply to introbert but it just seems like you’re assuming you’re the origin which you don’t.

I think that quora post I read years ago is mistake or I was. I mean I you can’t prove solipsism, how can you prove you’re the only mind in existence if you can’t even measure minds, let alone know of somewhere in the universe there is another. Or how do you know you’re not just someone’s dream or simulation. It seems like any attempt to prove it would involve so many assumptions that you can’t back it.

Then there is also that wrinkle about posting it on a public forum for people to read.

And it also assumes that you exist and are thinking and a bunch of other things it can’t prove.

Reply to Darkneos You're looking for solipsism as the absolute standard for experience, and that is not what it is. Anyone can tell you the individual mind acknowledges the existence of other minds. However, solipsism does manifest as mental disorder, is speculated to be the original psychological state at birth, and it can be experienced in social-psychological events such as when you are arguing alone against a group of people. Feral children, I have read, are found in a solipsistic state. The question is not if solipsism is true, but if it is a psychological state as 'legitimate' as intersubjectivity and acknowledging other minds. I personally cultivate solipsism as an irrationality, and can through thinking a certain way achieve a kind of solipsistic state similar to what I have experienced through other experimentations.

Quoting Banno

Who are you asking?

I was going to ask: prove to whom? What would be the point of trying to prove it to yourself?

Reply to introbert I think you’re missing the point of what’s going on here.

Though I don’t really regard solipsism as highly as in the years past because a lot of the explanations for people who “prove it” are straight nonsense like this:

Solipsism is not a choice, human beings or a human being is even in strict scientific terms a subjective entity, a subject, everything that happens to me is in my own subjective bubble. But, this is not where i see where the problem is at. The problem comes when, if you even come to the realization that solipsism is true, and that no event can exist without you consciously being subjectively aware of it, why would a solipsist or any person, put himself inside a simulated reality that basically restricts him in his wishes, fantasies, and absolute freedom. If you are infact first and foremost, outside of the simulated reality and have absolute freedom to do with yourself whatever you want, restricting yourself to a simulation even if it is self imposed, inside one’s own mind is really hard to understand. Because you would basically go into a span of about 80 years, experiencing even suffering, physical or psychological, being restricted in what you can do, example, no absolute control or freedom over matter, or the mind-matter relationship, i agree that it is hard to understand subjectivity and its logic that way. But, still, that does not negate solipsism. Because you also get to experience amazing beautiful things and extend your freedom further to the point of physical liberation or end which results in death, but you only end your own mind simulation. The whole process of solipsism is that every minute, date, month, year and second is a carefully planned event that must ultimately lead to absolute freedom, that is the end point of solipsism, to be able to do whatever you want, and without your subjectivity in that state ever ending.

1Reply to Darkneos If I'm missing the point I apologize for derailing. I just wanted to state my position that solipsism is not a perspective where truth is relevant, truth is only important to other minds. Have you ever met a compulsive liar? Theoretically they are in a kind of solipsistic state. They are not acknowledging the other mind against their own imaginings. When it comes to pulling the wool over someone's eyes it takes a person more aware of others' minds. Usually authority, statistical tricks, and some psycho-babble.

My two coins ... for what they're worth.

Solipsism is about knowledge (epistemology) and not ontology (metaphysics). The only proof that's for sale is what can be known to exist (with certainty). The project won't fly mon ami.

Reply to Agent Smith Solipsism can be about metaphysics. If one is the only person with a false/irrational belief, then one has to transcend "go beyond" the physical reality of the socius. Boom metaphysics. Your belief will never be true, therefore not epistemology, unless you change other minds. Then it is not metaphysics but epistem.

Reply to Agent Smith But nothing is certain though...so would that mean nothing exists. I mean at the ground level of any sort of system you build you make assumptions or axioms, without that you can't get anywhere.

It's why you can never prove solipsism, though I'm slowing getting over it and seeing how it's not really logical (consistent sure but not something to be taken seriously or at all since it says nothing and advances nothing).

But as I quoted above, those who try to prove it just end up making a whole bunch of assumptions they can't prove, like events only happen if you're looking at it which is nonsense, otherwise car crashes wouldnt happen.

Quoting Darkneos

But nothing is certain though...so would that mean nothing exists. I mean at the ground level of any sort of system you build you make assumptions or axioms, without that you can't get anywhere.

Sure, and some of these are certain. So to be reading this text, you have to take a range of things as granted: that I am writing this in English, in response to your post, addressing your concerns, which you recall and can also check by looking at your previous posts... and so on. That you continue to read this post puts the lie to doubt.

We make a big thing of having reasons for being certain. Somethings, including those listed, we take as granted, unless we see reason for doubt. We've learned a bias towards needing proof, failing to notice that some things are indubitable. What reason have you for doubting that this sentence is in English? How could such a doubt be reasonable?

Reply to Darkneos What do you mean by proof? Usually in logic we refer to deductive arguments as proofs. However, sometimes people refer to inductive arguments as proofs (using the word proof more loosely), viz., that the evidence is strong enough to believe the conclusion follows. If anything, the preponderance of the evidence is against solipsism. No one has demonstrated logically that solipsism is true.

Reply to Sam26 Because as far as I see you can't. There is no experiment you can construct that would prove it true because you can't test it. Even argument wise there is no way to prove it, it just assumes you are all there is. You couldn't prove it without invalidating it to begin with.

Which is why I'm heavily doubting not just my memory about what I read those years ago but if they actually did. But all I have is a very strong emotion that he certainly did but no memory of what was said, which means nothing.

Reply to Banno I don't think anything is indubitable at least from what I've heard other people say. I could doubt this is in english as I might have been mislead a lot of the time.

I don't think we have a learned bias towards needing proof, quite the opposite actually. In fact we fail to notice how much we take for GRANTED in our lives. Like that we exist, we just take it as a given never questioning it, yet when asked to prove it you can't without something self referential or just flat assertions.

Reply to Darkneos

The arguments I offered rely on either principles (novacula Occami) or definitions (3 marks of existence & epistemically-limited ontology). You may indeed question their legitimacy.

What I find intriguing is that as @Banno so insightfully inquired as to who the proof is meant for, a person X,

attempting to prove solipsism implies

1. X exists (as the target of the proof) [re cogito ergo sum]. Proof serves the same function as thought/doubt.

And

X succeeding to prove solipsism implies

2. Others don't exist.

Quoting introbert

Solipsism can be about metaphysics. If one is the only person with a false/irrational belief, then one has to transcend "go beyond" the physical reality of the socius. Boom metaphysics. Your belief will never be true, therefore not epistemology, unless you change other minds. Then it is not metaphysics but epistem.

I don't think metaphysics is transcendence of the physical. It isn't confined to the physical though. Also I did argue from an epistemo-ontological view (re Idealism).

First, it is necessary to distinguish the main types of solipsism and discuss their interrelations.

1) Metaphysical (M)
2) Epistemological (E)
3) Psychological (P)

Initially, it seems that your post concerns E solipsism, in asking "How can one know whether or not one's mind is all that exists?". Thus buried in this question are a concept and a presupposition, namely that one is using a closed a-priori definition as to what one means by one's mind, relative to which one is asking whether there exists a type of evidence, that if observable to ones mind, settles the question as to whether one's mind is all that exists.

M solipsism on other other hand, isn't a presupposition, but a refusal to grant intelligibility to the idea that there exists anything outside of one's mind. This entails that one's mind isn't meant as a closed and static concept that is a priori definable, but as an open and adaptive concept that is rationally and empirically exhaustive of one's concepts and potential experiences to the point of closing off the domain of philosophical and epistemological inquiry.

Philosophies that are sympathetic towards M solipsism are phenomenalism and empiricism. We might recall Berkeley, who rejected the conceivability of an unobserved and unimagined tree, Wittgenstein who questioned the intelligibility of the distinction of idealism and realism, and Charles Sanders Pierce who considered the external world to be congealed mind. These philosophers weren't speculating that mind is an exhaustive substance, as when an E solipsist and his naive-realist opponent considers mentality to be an object for propositional analysis. Rather, those philosophers treated mentality as a meta-linguistic activity that is the very basis of any act of rational and empirical enquiry.

As such, it doesn't make sense to argue for or against M-solipsism, as an M-solipsist will always interpret the arguments of any purported opponent or critic M-solipsistically. Indeed an M-solipsist might even identify as a realist for all epistemological purposes.

P solipsism is a ruminative psychological condition experienced by amateur philosophers and isolated individuals such as astronauts, who mistake their narrow a priori self-concept for the world. Anyone who self-identifies as an M-solipsist runs the risk of experiencing this condition as a result of misunderstanding the meaning of M-solipsism.

As solipsism can be proved false, it follows that solipsism can be proved to be not true.

Taking solipsism as knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is impossible

I want to prove the proposition P that solipsism is false.

Start by assuming that Solipsism is true.

Assertion one: I have knowledge of the novel Don Quixote, but as knowledge of anything outside my mind is impossible, only my own mind could have created Don Quixote, and therefore I am a great writer.

Assertion two: this post fails to convince me that this is the best argument to prove that solipsism is false, therefore I am not a great writer.

As assertions one and two are contradictory, by the law of noncontradiction, proposition P is in fact true, ie, solipsism is false.

Exist from ex meaning out and sistere which is to stand. In essence, to exist is to stand outside (of one's mind).

Il est facile de voir que ... I don't exist!

This is a key topic in the prevailing ethos of anti-schizophrenia. The first issue is that, of course, solipsism is a phenomenon of indirect realism. Indirect realism is not disproven by the solipsistic extreme that the mind originates all reality, neither is Idealism disproven by the existence of the physical realm. Solipsism is a verifiable fact of 'psychology'. Practical knowledge has been developed through the objectification of solipsism, such as 'theory of mind', therefore, through it's existence what is considered normal psychology has not been taken for granted, and some understanding has been developed of epistemology etc. Arguing solipsism is not true, is like arguing idealism is not true, but the difference is that idealism has developed in the modern by the rejection of manifest irrationalities that occur in nature. Solipsism is true because it resides in all of us, it is part of our bodily power, it can help us and it can hurt us. That it is most noticeable, made an object, through its problematic manifestation, and not really noticed when it is functional, arguing against it is an absurd and ironic rational idealism. Ironic, because one is using solipsism in making solipsism purely an idea your mind can deny, without acknowledging that there is a material basis for it outside your mind that is undeniable. This is like a transcendental idealism, but by trying to transcend solipsism, one confines idealism to rational (normative, deindividuating) thought. Ultimately a disempowering belief. This disempowerment, rejection of solipsist negation of other minds, turns one into a mindless extrovert. A mindless extrovert is a fascist, a mindless introvert (solipsist) is a homeless schizo. The Deleuzian concept can be interpreted that the schizo is an oppressed introvert (lone thinker) in a socius of extroversion (collective doers), is about a broader philosophical project that makes the anti-solipsist into a useful marionette, and the solipsist into a tangled mess of strings that only the most powerful can unravel.

If solipsism is true, then everything I know, such as apples, mountains, other people, are parts that make up the whole me. If from these parts I become conscious of something that I didn't know before, such as hearing about a scientific law, seeing a Derain painting, being told about the opening times of a new restaurant, reading a McCarthy novel, but these parts are in fact part of myself as a whole, then I must have already known about them.

So how does something that I know about but am not conscious of become something that I am conscious of.

If solipsism is true, only I could have decided to be conscious of something that I was previously not conscious of. But if I was not previously conscious of something, how could I know to become conscious of it. The solipsist needs to explain how I can become conscious of something that I was not previously conscious of.

Reply to RussellA You are performing a reducio ad absurdum, taking solipsism to it's extreme conclusion to refute it. Indirect realism can be reduced to the absurd by taking it to solipsism. However, solipsism is like indirect reality, it is not completely of the mind, but it is a function of the body.

Pure solipsism is not a challenging philosophical exercise. You don't have to have any JTB about any of the things that you mention, they are merely objects of your creation that mean whatever you want them to. Everything that is, is possibly interpretable by an 'idea of reference' that relates to you. About you or against you. You immediately understand everything as if it orbits around you like a planet around the sun. Better yet, geocentric is more solipsistic than heliocentric.

Obviously some manifestations of solipsism can be deemed false/untrue/dysfunctional, but ultimately it has a power whether you call it will-to-power or something else, that is opposed to group-think, consensus, democracy, fascism, normativity, herd mentality, objectivity, collectivism, state-philosophy, psychiatry, etc.

Quoting introbert

You are performing a reducio ad absurdum, taking solipsism to it's extreme conclusion to refute it. Indirect realism can be reduced to the absurd by taking it to solipsism. However, solipsism is like indirect reality, it is not completely of the mind, but it is a function of the body. Pure solipsism is not a challenging philosophical exercise.

The title of the thread is "Can you prove solipsism true?"
Yes, an argument that refutes an absolutist metaphysical solipsism also leads to a refutation of sceptical epistemological solipsism. Indirect Realism is not a form of solipsism.

Reply to RussellA Quoting RussellA

argument that refutes an absolutist metaphysical solipsism also leads to a refutation of sceptical epistemological solipsism

It does, and it has. It may not be true by modern philosophical ideals, but it is a true force of nature.

Quoting RussellA

Indirect Realism is not a form of solipsism.

I didn't say that it was. However, indirect realism is the underlying phenomenon.

Quoting introbert

This is a key topic in the prevailing ethos of anti-schizophrenia. The first issue is that, of course, solipsism is a phenomenon of indirect realism. Indirect realism is not disproven by the solipsistic extreme that the mind originates all reality, neither is Idealism disproven by the existence of the physical realm. Solipsism is a verifiable fact of 'psychology'. Practical knowledge has been developed through the objectification of solipsism, such as 'theory of mind', therefore, through it's existence what is considered normal psychology has not been taken for granted, and some understanding has been developed of epistemology etc. Arguing solipsism is not true, is like arguing idealism is not true, but the difference is that idealism has developed in the modern by the rejection of manifest irrationalities that occur in nature. Solipsism is true because it resides in all of us, it is part of our bodily power, it can help us and it can hurt us. That it is most noticeable, made an object, through its problematic manifestation, and not really noticed when it is functional, arguing against it is an absurd and ironic rational idealism. Ironic, because one is using solipsism in making solipsism purely an idea your mind can deny, without acknowledging that there is a material basis for it outside your mind that is undeniable. This is like a transcendental idealism, but by trying to transcend solipsism, one confines idealism to rational (normative, deindividuating) thought. Ultimately a disempowering belief. This disempowerment, rejection of solipsist negation of other minds, turns one into a mindless extrovert. A mindless extrovert is a fascist, a mindless introvert (solipsist) is a homeless schizo. The Deleuzian concept can be interpreted that the schizo is an oppressed introvert (lone thinker) in a socius of extroversion (collective doers), is about a broader philosophical project that makes the anti-solipsist into a useful marionette, and the solipsist into a tangled mess of strings that only the most powerful can unravel.

Not true at all. It's not true just because it resides in all of us. And it definitely isn't a verifiable act of psychology (which suggests the opposite).

Not to mention not of your logic follows or makes any sense.

Quoting introbert

You are performing a reducio ad absurdum, taking solipsism to it's extreme conclusion to refute it. Indirect realism can be reduced to the absurd by taking it to solipsism. However, solipsism is like indirect reality, it is not completely of the mind, but it is a function of the body.

Pure solipsism is not a challenging philosophical exercise. You don't have to have any JTB about any of the things that you mention, they are merely objects of your creation that mean whatever you want them to. Everything that is, is possibly interpretable by an 'idea of reference' that relates to you. About you or against you. You immediately understand everything as if it orbits around you like a planet around the sun. Better yet, geocentric is more solipsistic than heliocentric.

Obviously some manifestations of solipsism can be deemed false/untrue/dysfunctional, but ultimately it has a power whether you call it will-to-power or something else, that is opposed to group-think, consensus, democracy, fascism, normativity, herd mentality, objectivity, collectivism, state-philosophy, psychiatry, etc.

Still wrong, again.

Reply to sime It's metaphysical solipsism not the "how can we know" one, because we really can't. WE can't even know if we exist, like I said.

Berkley can argue against and unobserved and unimagined tree all he wants it doesn't make it any less real. It's also why idealism died out I guess and why we follow science. The "if I don't see it it didn't happen or isn't real" is one of the easiest things to disprove.

Everything else you said is irrelevant to the topic.

Reply to Agent Smith That's the insanity of trying to prove it, on top of it being unprovable of course.

Reply to Darkneos The standard you are holding solipsism to is not what it is but its absurd eventual conclusion. If you are asking if anyone can prove the absurd eventual conclusion is true, which is the argument against it, the discussion topic is meaningless.

Reply to introbert I’m not holding it to any sort of standard that is what it is not matter how you dress it up to sound even a little cogent.

It’s just another unprovable and untestable claim just like simulation

Quoting Darkneos

That's the insanity of trying to prove it, on top of it being unprovable of course.

I thought I proved ... something. I quite like me proofs. :smile:

Reply to Darkneos Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Reply to Agent Smith You didn't. None of your logic followed.

Reply to introbert It's not, you're just trying to patch it up to be something other than what it really is.

Like people said about my first post with that proof, it's nonsense.

Not to mention all this got way off track from my original post about whether the argument followed or was just nonsense.

Reply to Darkneos Why do you think solipsism is something other than its manifestations? Because that is how it is conventionally understood? The convention is an illusion. Don't ask if the illusion is true, but if the convention is true.

Reply to introbert It's not a convention, it's what solipsism IS. Period. Stop making it other than what it is, it's not working and getting off track.

Only I can prove solipsism true. By definition.

Reply to Darkneos I'm not inventing anything: solipsism is classified as mental disorder, feral state, speculated state at infancy, and an individual/ subjective/metaphysical/ irrational state. It is the perception that one is the sole mind and origin of everything, but it is not that reality. It is like the simulation hypothesis. The simulation hypothesis causes us to question what is real, but it is not the likely reality. That we can consider the simulation hypothesis is a function of indirect realism, that we can think of things and have perceptions that do not reflect the physical world. Solipsism is another function of indirect reality but it is about the ego v. other minds.

Reply to Darkneos ...and there is the bias.

Quoting unenlightened

Only I can prove solipsism true. By definition.

...and then the need for a proof seems moot.

Quoting Darkneos

You didn't. None of your logic followed.

I intelligo.

Reply to Banno If there is only one mind, your mind, then language is an illusion. Especially if you believe that there can be no private language. If language is an illusion, then there can be no propositions to form an argument. The fact that there is a language, this in itself, would seem to support the conclusion that solipsism is false. So, solipsism seems self-refuting.

Quoting Agent Smith

I thought I proved ... something.

I take up your challenge. :smile:

The argument is:
1) Only things that we're 100% certain exists exist.
2) The only thing I'm 100% certain exists is me (re cogito).
3) Ergo, I alone exist.

There are two parts to statement 1). The first part is "Only things that we're 100% certain exists". Name this first part X. The second part is "X exist".

The problem is what exactly is "exist" referring to.

As regards the first part of statement 1), as the only things that I'm 100% certain exist are my thoughts, such as my thought about apples, therefore, exists must be referring to what exists in my mind.

As regards the second part of statement 1), X exist, what is exist referring to, what is in my mind or what is outside my mind, apples existing as thoughts in my mind or apples existing in the world independently of my mind.

If exist is referring to what is in my mind, then 1) is tautological, in that thoughts about apples that exist in my mind exist in my mind as thoughts about apples. If exist is referring to what is outside my mind, then 1) is saying that the things that I am thinking about, such as apples, exist outside my mind. But this is an unjustified statement.

Therefore, statement 1) is the problem, in that it is either tautological or unjustified.

Reply to RussellA I'm a Pyrrhonist. :smile:

Quoting Agent Smith

I'm a Pyrrhonist

That's a very un-Pyrrhonist thing to say, you sound very certain about it.

Quoting RussellA

That's a very un-Pyrrhonist thing to say, you sound very certain about it

I'm not certain and hence I'm a Pyrrhonist.

Quoting Agent Smith

I'm not certain and hence I'm a Pyrrhonist.

Are you certain that you're a Pyrrhomist ?

Quoting RussellA

Are you certain that you're a Pyrrhomist ?

Yes.

Quoting Darkneos

But as I quoted above, those who try to prove it just end up making a whole bunch of assumptions they can't prove, like events only happen if you're looking at it which is nonsense, otherwise car crashes wouldnt happen.

Hopefully, the following argument uses no assumptions anyone would disagree with.

An argument for Solipsism

Everything I perceive in the world outside my mind happened in the past, whether the position of the moon or a leaf falling from a tree.

On the one hand, as I am always perceiving something that happened in the past, I am perceiving something that no longer exists, and to perceive something that no longer exists could be said to be perceiving an illusion.

On the other hand, I can imagine that what I am perceiving in the past continues to exist into the present. But what I am imagining is not the actual thing but a fictional account of it, and to imagine something that may or may not exist could be said to be perceiving a fiction.

Either way, everything I perceive existing in the world is either an illusion from the past or a fiction about the future.

Solipsism holds that only one's own mind is sure to exist. If my only knowledge about what exists in the world is either an illusion or a fiction, how can I be sure about any existence outside my mind, and isn't this what solipsism is saying.

Quoting Darkneos

It's metaphysical solipsism not the "how can we know" one, because we really can't. WE can't even know if we exist, like I said.

Berkley can argue against and unobserved and unimagined tree all he wants it doesn't make it any less real. It's also why idealism died out I guess and why we follow science. The "if I don't see it it didn't happen or isn't real" is one of the easiest things to disprove.

Everything else you said is irrelevant to the topic.

You appear to have false preconceptions regarding Berkeley's position. I'd recommend studying the SEP article before continuing discussion.

Reply to RussellA Faulty premises. Also the word illusion is doing a lot of heavy lifting as the only way illusion holds any sort of weight is if you know what’s reality, which under solipsism you could never do.

Also everything you are perceiving is in the now. Not the past. Even a memory of the past is still in the now. You aren’t imagining a fictional account either but the real thing.

Without any reality as a comparison the word “illusion is meaningless”. Solipsism ASSUMES one’s own mind is sure to exist. While in the process using words, concepts, etc that originate outside of the mind. Solipsism fails to prove the existence is a mind that it assumes to know for sure exists.

None of your points follow either and they assume too much, much like my original post guy did in his link.

Like I said before all arguments for it boil to nonsense since you have to deny solipsism to prove it and rely on things outside of it.

Reply to sime I don’t I’m well aware of his position and how he’s wrong given modern science discoveries. There is a reason idealism fell out, part of it being that it always leads to solipsism, ie “you’re all that exists”. He could only get around that by asserting some god mind which isn’t convincing.

Reply to introbert simulation hypothesis doesn’t cause us to question what is real. It’s an assertion with nothing to prove it, ergo junk.

Plus unless you can show a clear difference between a simulation and the real thing then they’re the same and the point is null.

Solipsism isn’t a mental disorder either. Again you are inventing things to make it other than it is.

Reply to Darkneos Technically it is not considered a "mental disorder" but it is part of diagnostic criteria like introversion, nihilism, antagonism, paranoia etc. That it is not a "mental disorder" doesn't negate it as mental disorder. Someone would hold their semantic ground that a mental disorder is the name of the phenomenon, but if someone can be diagnosed 'schizo' for being antagonistic, nihilistic, introverted and having solipsistic delusion it is mental disorder.

As for denying any simulation hypothesis from the soul to mind to computer does not cause someone to doubt what is real, compared to direct realism then perhaps Plato and Decartes are not as adept as you.

Quoting introbert

As for denying any simulation hypothesis from the soul to mind to computer does not cause someone to doubt what is real, compared to direct realism then perhaps Plato and Decartes are not as adept as you.

There's no reason to take it seriously. Unless they can demonstrate said alternate reality it's junk. Even then it wouldn't make this less real. You'd just have two realities. I mean alternate realities are a common trope in media today, even cartoons do it, so I don't see why it would make you question anything. Seems interesting rather than scary.

Quoting introbert

Technically it is not considered a "mental disorder" but it is part of diagnostic criteria like introversion, nihilism, antagonism, paranoia etc. That it is not a "mental disorder" doesn't negate it as mental disorder. Someone would hold their semantic ground that a mental disorder is the name of the phenomenon, but if someone can be diagnosed 'schizo' for being antagonistic, nihilistic, introverted and having solipsistic delusion it is mental disorder.

You're getting off track...again. It's far from my original post.

Reply to Darkneos Again, sorry if I derailed. I understand you want to talk about the view that your mind or whatever conjures all reality, and if it can be proven true.

Reply to introbert That and this reply under it:

Solipsism is not a choice, human beings or a human being is even in strict scientific terms a subjective entity, a subject, everything that happens to me is in my own subjective bubble. But, this is not where i see where the problem is at. The problem comes when, if you even come to the realization that solipsism is true, and that no event can exist without you consciously being subjectively aware of it, why would a solipsist or any person, put himself inside a simulated reality that basically restricts him in his wishes, fantasies, and absolute freedom. If you are infact first and foremost, outside of the simulated reality and have absolute freedom to do with yourself whatever you want, restricting yourself to a simulation even if it is self imposed, inside one’s own mind is really hard to understand. Because you would basically go into a span of about 80 years, experiencing even suffering, physical or psychological, being restricted in what you can do, example, no absolute control or freedom over matter, or the mind-matter relationship, i agree that it is hard to understand subjectivity and its logic that way. But, still, that does not negate solipsism. Because you also get to experience amazing beautiful things and extend your freedom further to the point of physical liberation or end which results in death, but you only end your own mind simulation. The whole process of solipsism is that every minute, date, month, year and second is a carefully planned event that must ultimately lead to absolute freedom, that is the end point of solipsism, to be able to do whatever you want, and without your subjectivity in that state ever ending.

Reply to Darkneos I look at it in a very simple and practical way. Solipsism is the potential of a person to exist in absolute illusion. It can be ironic on that the belief is opposed by other minds. That illusion could be a delusion, or it can be from mis/disinformation from other people. The biggest issues are not about the affairs of the world, but of this solipsistic simulation that reality is completely the product of each individual mind. The solipsistic simulation everyone has of the world is indistinct from their concept of self. The world and the self are experienced as one, but the body separates a person from the other objects in the world. I reduce solipsism to a conflict between ego/self/I vs. other minds as it seems through interaction with other minds that the pure solipsistic state of infancy is divided into other minds. How are other minds experienced by a sole originating solipsistic simulation of reality? From my examination of self a certain essence is extracted from that other mind, their expectations and rules and codes about how they construct their own simulation and how they would like you to construct yours. This is the issue I have with philosophy/ psychiatry in that as subjective states are objectified they create a target for opposing minds. Psychiatry to me, I reference my solipsistic simulation, creates a 'them' that is against solipsistic simulation, transcendence, etc. in favor of a functionalist body of individuals. Just as it is convenient for the communitarian that the disorderly simulation of the criminal can be used to promote their fascism, the disordered simulation of the 'mentally ill' can be used to slowly and methodically target what they interpret to be mental disorder and produce countervailing social types (those who target and control those those things in self and others). It has become a more legitimized form of medicine after ww2 (ironic coincidence?) with ways of tranquilizing the body, but it is a front against the transcendant solipsistic simulation. It is the confederacy against disorganized individual freedom. A confederate is a social-psychology term and the most important concept to understand.

Quoting Darkneos

Like I said before all arguments for it boil to nonsense since you have to deny solipsism to prove it and rely on things outside of it.

This is the problem of negative singular existence statements, where in order to deny the existence of a given individual, one must assume the existence of that very individual.

Quoting Darkneos

Faulty premises

Where is the faulty premise ?

My premise was "Everything I perceive in the world outside my mind happened in the past, whether the position of the moon or a leaf falling from a tree."

It takes time for light to travel from an object to my eyes, whether the 2.54 million years from the Andromeda Galaxy, the 8min 20sec from the Sun, the 1.3 sec from the Moon, as well as the leaf falling from the tree.

The time taken for light to travel from a falling leaf to my eyes may well be small, but it is finite. Pragmatically, it may make no difference to my daily life, but philosophically it does.

Philosophically, it means that it is impossible for me to have any knowledge of what exists in the present outside my mind. I may strongly infer what exists, but it is still an inference, and as only an inference, I can never be sure beyond doubt. I can only ever be sure of what exists in my mind in the present .

As I can only exist in the present, the past no longer exists. Therefore, the only other thing that can exist is the present outside my mind. But as I can only know the present outside my mind by inference, and as an inference is something that I may be wrong about, then is something that I cannot be sure about.

Therefore, the only thing that I can be sure about is the existence of my own mind, which is an argument for Epistemological Solipsism.

Food for thought: An atheist has to be a solipsist

Why?

The existence of god, being as rational as possible, is in the hands of the skeptic downgraded to may exist. Yet, atheists immediately take the extreme step to god doesn't exist.

Likewise, we've been able to demote other non-self things to may exist (per solipsism) and il est de voir que ... the other does not exist. Solipsism is then just being an atheist with regard to non-self. :cool:

Reply to Agent Smith I would agree that athiest=solipsist in that god is a potential other mind, and the solipsist tendancy is to argue against these to find true self. I'm solipsistic but I accept god as another object/concept like any other, but I dont have any piece of gods mind in me.

Reply to introbert

There is no may be.

Reply to Agent Smith That's fine. My mind is 100% independent of god.

Quoting introbert

That's fine. My mind is 100% independent of god.

:up: On a more serious note, solipsism seems connected to Chalmers' hard problem of consciousness.

Reply to Agent Smith All philosophy is about it.

Reply to Agent Smith That doesn’t even follow…

Like I said, pro solipsism arguments are nonsense.

Reply to RussellA Not true, those facts don’t matter philosophically, it’s all in the present and all these things are happening outside your mind as you’re taking things in (by your admission). You would have to prove your mind is the maker and receiver of these stimuli and I know you can’t, nor can anyone.

But again as stated you can’t be sure of your mind in the present let alone “you”. The fact you’re using leaned language that you got outside you is enough to blow that claim away. Try making any argument without language let alone the concepts to argue for solipsism, you can’t.

The past does exist, just not in the way you think. The present is also not an inference either. It exists apart from you. The only way for your argument to make any sense is to axiomatically claim that your mind and you don’t need a cause, and at that point you’ve already lost as that would violate Occam’s razor. Why assume you and your mind are cause less when it’s more logical to go with realism or the default view.

There really is no logic that can reasonably jump to solipsism. Just because we can’t be “sure” (and to be frank we can’t be sure of anything so that’s not a metric to use) doesn’t mean it’s all in your head or you’re the only conscious thing. That’s not what explains our observations so it doesn’t logically follow.

Like I said, faulty premises that assume too many things they can’t prove.

To repeat, arguments for solipsism eventually boil down to nonsense. And it’s why it’s pure faith, nothing more.

Quoting introbert

All philosophy is about it.

Makes a mental note of that. :up:Quoting Darkneos

That doesn’t even follow…

Like I said, pro solipsism arguments are nonsense.

Not so mon ami. Solipsism is skepticism's piéce de résistance, but skeptics can do a lot better if you catch me drift.

Reply to Agent Smith It's actually skepticism's greatest failure, since in trying to winnow it down to what can be known for certain ends up making a TON of other assumptions in the process to get there to the point where it gets absurd. It would in fact be less skeptical to assume an external reality.

Again solipsism fails Occams Razor.

Reply to Darkneos I believe you have it backwards. Skepticism is about not making & checking (unfounded) assumptions.

Reply to Agent Smith Not making and checking unfounded (which is already a red flag as what is considered unfounded is debatable) assumptions while in the process using unfounded assumptions.

They don’t even know if they’re thinking or if they exist, both of which are unfounded:

https://youtu.be/SRwMFjCoOUc

Quoting Darkneos

Not making and checking unfounded (which is already a red flag as what is considered unfounded is debatable) assumptions while in the process using unfounded assumptions.

They don’t even know if they’re thinking or if they exist, both of which are unfounded:

:chin: and :smile: Précisément.

Reply to Agent Smith Well the Video I linked to aruges how you can't even know if you're thikning or if there is a you.

SO while it appears to be skepticism it's really just fantasy it's doing.

Quoting Darkneos

Well the Video I linked to aruges how you can't even know if you're thikning or if there is a you.

SO while it appears to be skepticism it's really just fantasy it's doing.

:up: I'll watch the video later. Danke.

I still want to know about my orignal post though

Reply to Darkneos

I skimmed through the quora answer; didn't find anything noteworthy.

Solpisism is epistemological and not ontological in nature. It's about what we can know about reality rather than what reality is. Your question is moot.

Quoting Darkneos

There really is no logic that can reasonably jump to solipsism. Just because we can’t be “sure” (and to be frank we can’t be sure of anything so that’s not a metric to use) doesn’t mean it’s all in your head or you’re the only conscious thing. That’s not what explains our observations so it doesn’t logically follow.

Epistemological solipsism is the philosophical idea that one can only be sure about the existence of one's own mind. The existence of an external world is not necessarily rejected but one can not be sure of its existence.

You write that "and to be frank we can't be sure of anything", but that is exactly the metric to make the jump to epistemological solipsism.

Your position that "we can't be sure of anything" is the point of epistemological solipsism.

Reply to Agent Smith how is it moot, the guy tried to prove solipsism.

Reply to RussellA Except you can’t be sure of the existence of your own mind. Hence another argument based on nonsense.

You write that "and to be frank we can't be sure of anything", but that is exactly the metric to make the jump to epistemological solipsism.

Your position that "we can't be sure of anything" is the point of epistemological solipsism.

Wrong again bud. Can’t be sure of anything just leaves you stuck then. You can’t be sure you exist or your mind, you don’t jump to solipsism from there. YOU CAN’T. At least not without leaps of faith like any other philosophy.

The position of “not be sure of anything” isn’t the point of epistemological solipsism (which let’s face it is just splitting hairs from metaphysical solipsism). Solipsists are at lest sure they and their mind exist, and yet have no basis for thinking so. They just assume that to be the case.

So still not correct there.

Quoting T Clark quoting R. G. Collingwood

Metaphysical statements are not true or false. They have no truth value. They are the underlying assumptions, Collingwood called them "absolute presuppositions," that underlie our understanding of the nature of reality. They are the foundations of science.

Is it your understanding from the above that assumptions_presuppositions cannot be refuted?

Reply to ucarr They can’t. You can’t refute god, simulation, etc, or anything metaphysical really. There’s no way to really test it, just like you can’t prove solipsism.

There’s a set of assumptions you have to make about the world, without which you can’t do any thing. Even solipsism assumes the subject or mind exists, well that and a lot of other things like assuming the area around them isn’t real, that other people don’t have minds. It assumes too much that it breaks Occam’s razor

Quoting Darkneos

You can’t refute god, simulation, etc, or anything metaphysical really.

Quoting Darkneos

There’s a set of assumptions you have to make about the world, without which you can’t do any thing.

Okay. Metaphysics calls for a special type of assumption: an assumption that resembles an axiom.

Everyday assumptions are refutable: We had been working on the assumption that the murder took place after midnight. When the detectives proved it happened before midnight, our defense of the suspect collapsed.

Quoting Darkneos

how is it moot, the guy tried to prove solipsism

It's moot because ex mea (humble) sententia, it conflates epistemology with metaphysics (ontology).

Reply to Agent Smith Seems like same thing as far as solipsism goes.

Reply to ucarr Yeah but that's not what we're talking about.

Quoting Darkneos

Seems like same thing as far as solipsism goes.

I don't see it though unless you mean it in a Schopenhaurean Will sense.

Reply to Agent Smith I don't it just honestly sounds like splitting hairs to be honest since it's not knowing if there is anything else but you. Though that would raise the question about why are you even talking to other people or posting on the internet. The response they get is "they're going along, they're playing the game" which is just absurd, honestly.

Reply to Darkneos I wouldn't know mon ami. I usually try not to get confused, but it seems I am ... quite confused.

Reply to Agent Smith I don't see what there is to be confused about. There is no real difference between metaphysical or epistemological solipsism, it's just splitting hairs when it's ultimately the same thing it's talking about.

But the more you think about it the more of a nothingburger it is. I mean you can't test it, you can't even know, or feel the difference if there even is one, and if there was you'd never know since all you have is your perception so you can't validate it. You'd have to be able to get outside of your perception to do so but that would be invalidating solipsism as soon as you do. So.........................................................

I don't know. I just thinking about it I have to wonder why even think about it?

Reply to Darkneos

Well, I dunno about you, but I am confused. Perhaps you need to look at the matter from a different angle, oui?

Reply to Agent Smith There is no other angle. Sometimes people trying to make a distinction can't see the forest for the trees. Like when you break it down there is no distinction between metaphysical solipsism or epistemological.

Reply to Darkneos That's an interesting comment. There must be/there'a gotta be a way of either proving/disproving solipsism, right?

Reply to Agent Smith Nope. It’s impossible because there is no way to get outside of your perception. Ironically getting outside your perception would disprove it immediately. So in order to test or prove it it would have to be wrong.

Quoting Darkneos

Nope. It’s impossible because there is no way to get outside of your perception. Ironically getting outside your perception would disprove it immediately. So in order to test or prove it it would have to be wrong.

I see. Good point.

Reply to Darkneos Solipsism is a "Not even wrong" ontological claim. Whether its true or not it doesn't change a thing in how we register and evaluate Empirical Regularities and External Limitations of reality, plus it is really arrogant to believe that all the fine art and great music and philosophical ideas and crimes against humanity were the product of one mind.
As observers we will still have to struggle in order to survive, seek well being , avoid suffering and many of us will eventually fail.
Like any pseudo philosophical idea (an idea that doesn't succeed in expanding our understanding and wisdom) discussions on Solipsism place should be in a bar with a glass of beer on hand, not in a philosophical forum.
The idea of "simulation hypothesis" was an official attempt to justify the place of soliphism in Philosophy and science but after it was proven wrong (back in the 2017)by science its was dismissed for good.

I heard a funny story told by Alvin Plantinga, a well know philosopher of religion. One day he visited a surgeon who proclaimed that he was convinced solipsism was indeed true. Upon leaving his office Plantinga asked one of the nurses what they thought of the surgeon, they replied "We make sure we take very good care of him."

In what type of Logic do you want your proof to be served to you?

Reply to Darkneos

I'm replying to you because you started this discussion. I hope I'm not being too disruptive by intervening at this late stage. I have read the discussion so far. I hope I can bring something new to it.

The core of the solipsism seems to be “I alone exist” (call this P). From my point of view, this is clearly empirically false. I can recognize other people and interact with them; my training for this began within minutes of being born, before I could speak or think.

But a solipsist is clearly a person, living in the same world as me. But I an equivalent belief - that other people exist. Certainly refutation or proof of the normal kinds are not available. So this must be a proposition of a different kind – hinge, conceptual, grammatical. That does not mean it is trivial. However, I can only decide how serious or trivial it is when I understand it.

It may be that solipsism is based on the observation that I am the subject of my experienes, make my various judgements, have various desires and values and perform various actions. No-one else can do those things. Indeed, some people think that this is what constitutes my self, and similar observations underpin various other ideas in philosophy.

For me, “I” designates the same thing as my name, namely me. That does not mean a special part of me, but rather the whole of me (although that whole, like other things with parts, can undergo various changes as time goes by.)

So the difference is a difference in the idea of the self, person, human being.

How to understand and evaluate this? Assuming that everything that can be said in one language can also be said in the other, it will come down to different attitudes and ways of interacting with other people. And it will likely be a pragmatic decision.

Reply to Ludwig V That's not even close. It's literally what it says on the box, nothing else. That you are the only thing that exists, or only person.

Other forms say you can only be sure that you exist and everythign else is uncertain but this is the same thing and just splitting hairs.

Reply to Darkneos

I don't understand. Do you mean that solipsism consists of just that statement "I alone exist", in two versions, "I exist and nothing else exists" and "I exist and no other person exists".

No reasons, no explanation of what "exists" means or "I" means?

No response to the question what that assertion means if there is no-one to hear it?

Or is it just that each solipsist has their own meaning and reasons?

I have to look again at the links you gave in the beginning.

That seems to be a box with a label but no content.

Reply to Ludwig V more like you don't understand what solipsism is and likely are making it out to be more than that.

Reply to Darkneos

That is a possibility. I'll think about that.

Reply to Darkneos

Well, I can't understand solipsism from a solipsist's point of view, because I have a different hinge (axiom?). Even if I didn't, I still couldn't understand solipsism from any point of view but my own.

Nonetheless, in my reading, both those arguments (I'm not sure if that's the right word for Anonymous' piece, but it certainly is for Barmadosa's) turn on: - Quoting Ludwig V

I am the subject of my experiences, make my various judgements, have various desires and values and perform various actions. No-one else can do those things.

. Or so it seems to me.

You started this discussion because, as you say: - Quoting Darkneos

I'm asking because years ago I thought I saw a post on Quora that proved solipsism to be true and I suffered since then. But I don't remember what it said or even if it was right (I'm pretty bad at philosophy) and I can't find the post. So I've lived thinking it's true this whole time and there isn't a reason to connect with people because they aren't real. But if solipsism is unproveable then he's wrong and I can move on.

So we are agreed that solipsism is unproveable.

It might help, though, to think that there doesn't need to be a reason to connect with people. Like all the best things in life, it is something worth doing for it's own sake, and it might reduce your suffering. Elimination of suffering is too much to ask, I'm afraid. That's my experience, at least.

You might be less pleased if I point out that the fact that solipsism is unproveable means that it's undisprovable, as well. But that only means that each solipsist and non-solipsist has to decide for themselves where they stand. I guess solipsists can live with that. (Anonymous, at least, seems to have taken that on board.)

Reply to Ludwig V Well no, if solipsism were true there would be no reason to connect with people because there would be no other people.

Quoting Darkneos

Well no, if solipsism were true there would be no reason to connect with people because there would be no other people.

So you are concerned that solipsism might be unprovable but nonetheless true. Historical speculations fall into that class. There could be evidence, but we'll never get it. For example, so we'll never know what Julius Caesar said to Brutus, as he and his friends stabbed him to death. The claim that he said "Even you, my child" is unprovable but might be true.

I was treating solipsism as a hinge proposition or an axiom. It is not like a historical speculation. No evidence will ever be relevant to its status. That's why hinge propositions and axioms are not proved or disproved, but chosen or adopted. One can choose a different hinge, a different axiom. So if solipsism causes you suffering, it is open to you to adopt a different hinge/axiom.

Solipsism could be something as hard to change as a bad habit, and I'm well aware that pressing suggestions on someone who wants to change a habit is not only useless, but offensive. So I wouldn't dream of pressing any suggestion about what to do about solipsism on you.

I can't see how this can be discussed. Do we agree on that?

Reply to Ludwig V yeah. It’s either something you believe or don’t. That’s about it.

Reply to Darkneos

Well, there's nothing to say, then. Thanks for enlightening me.