Help with moving past solipsism
I know I might have asked this already but I guess Im trying again. I need help with moving past solipsism. Its been a persistent thorn in my side since I read about it and has led to severe depersonalization/derealization. The issue I have is that it cant be prove wrong (or right but thats a less salient point).
Doesnt help reading people saying stuff like this:
https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-cope-with-solipsism-Im-not-a-solipsist-myself-but-my-brain-thinks-Im-alone-in-this-universe-as-a-normal-human-being/answer/Ganesh-Kalyanaraman-1
Or this:
https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-cope-with-solipsism-Im-not-a-solipsist-myself-but-my-brain-thinks-Im-alone-in-this-universe-as-a-normal-human-being/answer/Erik-Jespersen-8
Like I get everyone experiences their personal version of reality to put it in one way. But to think that the universe exists only in my mind, just affects me a certain way.
So Im wondering, again, how others deal with this. Ive tried to let it go and believe otherwise. Like people saying there is no difference in the world if its true or not so youre better off believing whatever works for you. But what I hear believe whatever works for you it just sounds like accepting ignorance and lying to yourself.
This is severely impacting my life in a profoundly negative way.
Doesnt help reading people saying stuff like this:
https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-cope-with-solipsism-Im-not-a-solipsist-myself-but-my-brain-thinks-Im-alone-in-this-universe-as-a-normal-human-being/answer/Ganesh-Kalyanaraman-1
Or this:
https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-cope-with-solipsism-Im-not-a-solipsist-myself-but-my-brain-thinks-Im-alone-in-this-universe-as-a-normal-human-being/answer/Erik-Jespersen-8
Like I get everyone experiences their personal version of reality to put it in one way. But to think that the universe exists only in my mind, just affects me a certain way.
So Im wondering, again, how others deal with this. Ive tried to let it go and believe otherwise. Like people saying there is no difference in the world if its true or not so youre better off believing whatever works for you. But what I hear believe whatever works for you it just sounds like accepting ignorance and lying to yourself.
This is severely impacting my life in a profoundly negative way.
Comments (215)
Solipsism is an extreme form of skepticism. A little skepticism is good but too much can be disabling.
It is kind of like an addiction, first you have to want to change.
What is it about solipsism that affects you?
If I only exist in your mind, then why don't I know who you are or where you are?
How can someone else teach you something new, if only you exist?
I witnessed something happen when I was 15, how come you don't know what it is, if I only exist via you?
Solipsism is nonsense! So if I only exist via you, then why is the 'me' part of you, that is convinced solipsism is bullshit, not as convincing to you, as the 'you' part of you that thinks solipsism has value?
You can rationalise solipsism out of all relevance to your life.
What do you think of this? Go to top of thread.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14113/solipsism-and-universal-mind
As an atheist, I have some attraction to your view of solipsism Tom, as it would mean, Jesus, Mohamed, and all those messiah's were just in [s]my[/s] sorry, YOUR head. As is all human suffering, even the suffering [s]I,[/s] sorry again, YOU, don't know about. It's all just in your head, so the antinatalists need not have posted here at all. Oh wait, I forgot again, all antinatalists, are in YOUR head!! :halo:
Just based on @Tom Storm's great view of solipsism, can the world now blame you for coming up with Donald Trump? Perhaps having a wee giggle at what solipsism would make YOU responsible for would help you realise that even though, it remains unfalsifiable, but so is god, infinity and nothingness, solipsism IS utter nonsense and not something that should ever have the power to affect you in the way you suggest in your OP.
Kill the idea DEAD, once and for all!
Being cosmically alone (potentially). That all I love and care for isnt real because theyre just mental projections. Its scary. I can imagine hugging my dogs or future husband tightly and begging and pleasing inside my head for them to be real. Its that horrible for me.
Its why I ask if its unprovable because that at least makes it better, a little. It just become a matter of belief.
Until one day I was on Quora and thought someone ended up proving solipsism true. But I cant remember what they said or if it was true but in the moment (I think so at least) it felt like a death blow to me. Ive been carrying this all this time. But if solipsism is truly inherently unprovable then he is wrong and no one can. But I havent been able to shake that day and Im not going to plumb solipsism stuff on Quora because Ill get triggered again.
Its devastated my ability to interact with people as Im always holding back from caring all the way. I cant just let go and feel, theres always this wall between me an life and I desperately want to break through. But it just feels like a fight Im losing.
There arent enough reallys I can fit into a sentence to express how much I want to be rid of this, its truly heartbreaking
Thats why Im seriously hinging on it being unprovable because then I can let go of what that poster said.
I dont want to keep playing pretend with everything and everyone around me. Its too mentally taxing. I play video games but I cant keep escaping into them all the time.
Solipsism has no empirical consequences. To associate a particular type of experience with solipsism is to misunderstand it.
Perhaps one solution for this is to accept life may be solipsistic but you can still be happy or unhappy, even if it is a type of dream. Maybe you can make it a lucid dream. Make it fun, embrace the appearance of reality and the beauty in the 'phoney' details, enjoy the ride, give it your best. But don't try too hard.
Though philosophy doesn't offer mathematical theorems which can be checked by a computer, solipsism has basically been proven wrong (or absurd or confused.) Here's are few dialogues that
may or may not help.
***
--It doesn't make sense for us to doubt whether there is something for us to be right or wrong about in the first place.
--Is there a world outside me I can be wrong about ? I don't know. I better be careful and not assume too much. I wouldn't want to get this wrong. Wait a minute !
***
--It doesn't make sense for us to use logic and concepts to a argue against the bindingness or publicness or force of logic and concepts.
--But how can you make such a bold claim ? Prove it ! Wait a minute!
***
Everything is up for debate except that there is something that we can be wrong about. To be debate this is to assume it. The minimum epistemic situation that makes sense is a [at least virtual] plurality of persons subject to the same logic/language and together in a world that they can be right or wrong about. Being-together-in-a-world-with-others-in-a-language cannot be sensibly challenged. Any challenge only makes senes in just that minimal situation. The plurality is virtual because you can be the last man alive, while still experiencing the 'force' of logic and the meaning of words as self-transcending. The solipsistic nightmare is an ego trip which deludes itself that it assumes nothing precisely as it assumes unwitting an obsolete historically contingent metaphysics. In other words, it's some weird stuff that went in like poison through the ear. Why is this self so taken for granted? As if one knows what one even means by 'self'?
I could let it go as a maybe yes or no if not for that post. But I cant remember it or find it.
I cant treat it like a dream or a lucid dream. That would just make it worse. Nothing could be worse knowing youre alone and everyone around you is hollow.
Life is terrifying. Love is a great act of courage. Solipsism might even be tempting as an escapist fantasy. You mentioned playing video games. Is there an analogy between video games and solipsism ? Is solipsism the fantasy that nothing is real so there's no love to win or lose, no actual danger ?
When I was younger, I had some great friends with whom I could talk about just about anything. This was my substitute for therapy. But I'm under the impression that these days young men are lonelier than ever. The culture has changed. More people are living lives of quiet desperation, which fucking blows. So (as someone else mentioned) maybe think of this as essentially a social issue. Maybe seek counseling, expand or create a friend network. I wish you well. And we can talk more about the philosophical issue too, if you want.
That's OK. It's a compression of Wittgenstein and Heidegger and various other difficult philosophers. But it's the mainstream 20th century jailbreak from the Cartesian cage.
The one thing I can think of is if he did prove it on Quora, why post it on a forum or thread answering a question? It doesnt make sense because if you do prove it theres no one to prove it too. But posting it means you want others to see it so youd be invalidating it if you shared it right?
https://carm.org/about-philosophy/what-is-solipsism-and-is-it-true/
Some of the arguments you linked to are related to those I provided. So I'd say that yes there are some decent points made there. One approach that may or may not be helpful is to really think and read about what the hell a self is supposed to be in the first place. In my opinion, one of the big virtues of philosophy is that it wakes us up to the fact that we mostly don't know that we don't know what we are talking about. We use inherited words in the standard ways and think with them without really feeling them or digging into to them. What is this self that thought to be alone with itself ? How does this self 'know' that it is a self ? That's part of what's assumed without question, even in an attempt to question radically. Language is the given, but language (I claim) is necessarily worldly and social and self-transcending.
The other part is that solipsism is extra skepticism so I dont think you can prove it true. I mean youd have to answer where you got the language to be able to think of it, but further when you doubt everything but that you definitely exist you dont have anything you can use to support your point.
IMO you would need utter omniscience to prove solipsism true and thats never gonna happen.
These are good points. The more you think about, the more it falls apart. And who is this 'you' who 'got' the language in the first place ? The self tends to be understood as the unity of a voice, as a locus of responsibility for what that voice claims. What does it mean to be a self ? Why do we care about being right or wrong ? What law do we obey when we try to make a case for or against solipsism ? The self is maybe something like a fusion of giving a damn and responsibility for what it says and does ---and responsibility means memory and having a past. Giving a damn means wanting something, avoiding something. So we already have a world and...
But if you cannot even remember the details of what this idiot on Quora posted as a proof that solipsism is a fact, then there must be more to your predicament. Perhaps you have created this 'enemy' for yourself and poured too much of your psyche into it. Most of us create our own hell.
You can defeat it completely. Have you ever tried stuff like putting the word solipsism on a pillow or punch bag and punch and kick the f*** out of it every time the word or concept comes up in your mind and bothers you? I have done stuff like that in the past and it really helped. I have also (during times of trauma in my twenties) sat in my bed at night, wide awake and mentally battling with whatever physical and psychological horrors I had managed to manifest in my life at that point.
I always had three voices, which I called me. myself and I.
One was very rational and 100% positive but did have to fight and got very tired doing so sometimes ( I think it was my cortex). Another 'influencer' was just scared and full of the 'flight' and 'panic' instincts and the third voice was forever changing sides in support of one of the other two voices. (I think this was my R-complex and limbic system). My cortex(myself) completely won, in the final analysis. Me and I eventually diminished in influence and would still always be present but accepted myself as the best voice to pay most attention to......... and we all lived happily ever after! ...... well, not quite but I did destroy the most negative aspects of my thinking that was plaguing my life at the time.
As I said, you can defeat such, if you get angry enough at yourself, but not a destructive anger. An anger that is utterly determined to choose life and refuse to live it as a curse.
Could someone explain this point from the link, Im not sure I understand how it disproves it:
Once you consider that there are several problems that arise that are one the same level with solipsism, in terms of being irrefutable by reason, you can mitigate the impact.
One cannot refute strong skepticism. Nor the idea that we live in a simulation, nor can you refute the multiverse, or refute the idea that we are inside the dream of another person and so on.
Multiply the scenarios as you like, and then you can begin to see solipsism lose its importance in terms of impact - if anyone can make up a scenario, an infinite amount of them, out of thin air, how likely is that scenario to be right? Exceedingly small.
Youre right I cant refute simulation or multiverse. There is no way to test the simulation from inside it as all of it could just be part of the simulation. With solipsism I think the only way to know that it is is by what its not. IE I could only know this is all in my head by knowing what is not that. But you could never know, so you could never test, because you cant escape your point of view.
Buuuuuuut then I read stuff like the second Quora link and I backslide all the way down into thinking denying solipsism is delusional. That and getting over how sticky that day of mine was. Though my theory as to why that sticks out is that it was Halloween and it was the day after I told my parents I my car needed a new engine because I didnt change the oil and it was over $5,500 to fix. I was pretty depressed that day. I was also browsing ways out of solipsism like usually and had strong reactions to anything that didnt say it was nonsense
I can see that. You have to keep in mind, that the best minds - people like Schopenhauer and Russell, couldn't refute it: it is irrefutable. But that's just a fact about the way our reasoning capacities are constituted, it's like complaining that we can't see more colours in the electromagnetic spectrum - true - but irrelevant.
Now, I for instance, cannot do math beyond the basics, if I see something like 2x=2a or something, my brain hurts. Other people take this to be trivial. Why would I want to create something I don't have the capacity to understand, but others do?
It's a torture - and a nonsensical one. It's more probable that these other people who are good at these things don't depend on me for them to do math, and likewise with super athletes and so forth.
Philosophical topics often do this to people. In your case it's solipsism, for others, it's deep pessimism. To others, it's absurdism, etc. For me, it's the nature of the external world.
However, the distress caused by my bouts of obsession with the topic, is not entirely negative, I try to find the positives in the stress. How utterly strange that such abstract questions - deep ones too - can cause such distress, it's a kind of wonder too.
In your case, you can take it and say, wow, my mind is extraordinarily powerful to be able to create everything. In won't eliminate the problem, but it could help on such occasions.
But as Hume says somewhere, something along the lines of: nature hereby is shown merciful, for what she induces in us (unsolvable problems) are also relieved by her. When we go back to other activities and divert our attention, the problem fades away. When we return to it with this relaxed state of mind, the problem looks cold and distant.
There's something to that reasoning.
Firstly that I see no reason why solipsism must necessarily have the consequences you're describing. It's not just solipsism that you're unwilling to challenge, but your current interpretations such as what it means for solipsism to be true. For example, AI is making outstanding developments recently, one day, people will perhaps call an AI their friend, or perhaps even romantic partner. I welcome that, and I think a friendship with an AI is a perfectly legitimate friendship, with the potential of curing someone's loneliness.
Assuming you're unable to escape being a solipsist and cease banging your head against that wall, then at least do not leave these other ideas unchallenged.
Most importantly though, you are wrong that you need to disprove solipsism, that's not how belief works.
You only need to sufficiently doubt the idea, and doubt can be manufactured in many ways. Even a small bit of doubt is sufficient, provided it's being emphasised. Currently, it seems to me that if there's any possibility that solipsism might be true, then you are not going to let go.
In essence, you are on the wrong side of this "doubt" factor. You feel like you need to absolutely disprove it, any doubt as to whether it's true or not, and your default position is solipsism.
I would recommend starting from the position that your belief in solipsism is harmful and you want to get rid of it. Then relentlessly assault the idea, with 100% maximum confirmation bias, to reach the conclusion that being a solipsist is stupid. Justify your confirmation bias by recognising it's in your best interests. I think you could do this easily if you wanted, but based on your responses, I'm not sure you actually want to not be a solipsist. Your response to everyone else, and likely me as well, is to justify yourself, defend your actions and defend your belief. As I said, you're on the wrong side of the "doubt" factor, you are biased against reasons for disbelief and will defend reasons for belief.
Until you stop doing that, then you aren't likely to change, or it's more accurate to say you won't stop succeeding at defending your belief. You act like you're going to defend solipsism as strongly as you can until someone finally 100% disproves it and then the spell will be broken.
That's the entire problem, you'll stop being a solipsist easily if you dropped this act. If you refuse, then try what I suggested earlier and challenge your interpretations and logic that connect solipsism to the negative living conditions you describe. If you can't argue against your logic or change your interpretation, search for another argument that is equally valid for you, but results in a healthier outcome, and focus your attention on it, promote it, and justify doing so by characterising your old beliefs by the discomfort they produce.
If you're unwilling to challenge any of your own thoughts, ask why, and challenge your unwillingness to challenge yourself. I promise that you're easy to break, but only if you let it happen.
Though I think its a bit fallacious to say if the minds of the past couldnt do it then future ones cant. I mean I would totally go for that but its not a strong counterpoint. Though finding nothing on google does seem to support the it cant be proven.
Though I would like someone to explain the quoted part.
My issue comes from my alleged proof on that day. Despite my attempts to doubt and question how I can know no matter how shaky I make it my mind cant let it go. Ive done nothing but argue against it, cast doubt, show the holes. But ultimately though my mind wont accept it, because youre just trying to feel better rather than challenge yourself. Attempts to believe something helpful are smacked away by similar sayings.
Side note you are overinflating what AI can be. From what we know about it its not going to get at the level youre talking about.
Like I said, I have utter certainty about what I read that day proving it truth, in spite of the fact I cant remember it, cant be sure its true, etc. Yet knowing all that trying to doubt that just makes the belief stronger not weaker. As far as that part of me is concerned there is no doubt. And I dont think Im likely to find that post on Quora given I dont know who said it or what it was under specifically.
Thats why I want it to be factually unprovable so that what I read that day can be wrong.
:up:
On the other side of the ledger, there's no one to compare yourself to. (I suspect that art generated by bots is going to mess with artistic identity---not only in a bad way, I hope.)
These moral arguments are good, do you see yourself as somewhat heroic for facing these harsh truths of reality? Excellent, now work to discredit this idea, and emphasise how foolish and impractical it is for one to believe something while knowing it makes them miserable.
You've set up conditions that make it extremely difficult for you to let go of solipsism, if you refuse to let them go, then what other outcome can you expect?
Solipsism is a set of very specific interpretations and conclusions being emphasised to present an argument. They're not truths in themselves, and rejecting them is not the same as rejecting the truth. You should focus on things you do not believe are truths, and challenge them instead. Or as I suspect, you'll insist on changing nothing, in which case, that's the problem, so do something about it.
I'm sometimes accused of being a solipsist, which I deny, but I'm pretty sure that even if I was a solipsist, it wouldn't cause me any mental health issues. "Truth" is a nonsensical conceptualisation that people have way too much faith in. There are many ways for things to be real, a lie is just as real as reciting a truth, for example. An illusion still exists as an illusion. What's the difference between being friends with a real person or an imaginary one, if the end result is functionally the same? Why do you even care? Is being happy as a solipsist really unattainable?
The only difference is your value system, the one that says "I care" and gives reasons, that's a value of yours, not a "truth". Your devotion to your values and ideas is the problem, you don't seem to have any standards for them, even if they make you miserable and are utterly useless, you defend them, isn't that so?
That last part really illustrates the creepiness of solipsism. I take credit for everyone's lines. Soul snatching at its finest.
The thing is, the world does have solidity. The criteria for a thing being what it is, for its "existing", have developed through our whole history. The difference between what is a plea and what is a claim, is actual, ordinary, common. You know what an excuse is, different than a reason. These are the bounds and points of flex of our culture, not by fragile agreement, but through the thrust of our ancient lives carried on by what we claim as our future duties. All of this: is outside you. Yet still, rather than accept it, its uncertainty, you can kill the whole world. Up again old heart, as Emerson says, and, also, that patience and hope are needed for insight, more than thought.
People have a psychological tendency to misconstrue metaphysical solipsism with Cartesianism (psychological solipsism), due to the fact their use of the personal pronoun comes with a lot of baggage.
Berkeley's subjective Idealism, which is often associated with metaphysical solipsism, distinguished Ideas (that is to say , experiences with empirical content) from Spirits (the notion of volitional agents that aren't perceivable, pace Hume and Melbranche). The postulate "being is perception" therefore concerned ideas only, leaving intact the common-or-garden "vulgar" meanings of causality and "who" did "what".
Ironically, one of the central motives of metaphysical solipsism is to refute epistemological scepticism that doubts the reality of the "external" world, by arguing that the "external" world isn't external and therefore not doubtable.
Quoting Manuel
Quoting Judaka
Quoting Darkneos
Solipsism, born from skepticism, is not ridiculous, or just illogical, or wrong.
Cavell (through Wittgenstein) shows that there is something that the skeptic is getting at that is true. If we want only to rely on justification, proof, certainty, than we see nothing else, and so are only left with their lack, sliding right through the cracks of the world into a void--there is no fact to solve this. But knowledge is not the only way we relate to the world. The truth of Skepticism is that part of being human is our part, to step forward with courage, to treat the other as if they are a human (as if they have a soul Wittgenstein would say), meaning not as if they were real, because I don't know your pain, I react to it (or ignore it).
Who do you assume is the narrator in this paragraph that is referencing 'he?'
Can you not see that the existence of a narrator, separate from 'he,' suggests more than one existent and therefore disputes solipsism. Not only does the scenario described in the paragraph, dispute solipsism, the proposed existent characters involved, also dispute solipsism.
Most origin stories for our universe involve a progression from a single source towards the existence of many multiple varieties. The singular expands and its componets combine in new ways to produce multiple existents. Solipsism is given value by this, because an infinite regression must have a single 'first cause.' But that would not make YOU that first cause!
There are also the various cyclical universe theories, such as Roger Penrose's CCC, where the singular state, 'returns' after a 'universe' cycle ends. This would push your single solipsistic entity back to the status of a 'mindless spark,' that started the eternal cycle and no longer exists. YOU cannot be all that exists, unless YOU created this universe or IS the first cause of an eternal cycle.
I had a University friend, who was bipolar. His capability in maths was very impressive indeed.
He was a very intense character at Uni, and he was obsessed with thinking about infinity.
His obsession with infinity would often trigger, the extremities of his bipolar condition and he had some quite nasty 'episodes' as a result. He had some tough times in his life, but he eventually became a database manager, got married, has now got 3 kids and is doing well.
He eventually defeated his irrational obsession with the concept of infinity, so, such irrational obsessions CAN be defeated.
Quoting Judaka
These are very good words, you should consider them very seriously.
Oh, I agree that's no help at all. You want a real proper reason to think there are other minds, no?
1) My body does what it does because of my mind. If I didn't feel things and have experiences, my body wouldn't do what it does. Mind is a necessary condition for me to behave the way I do.
2) Other bodies are separate from my body.
3) Other bodies do strikingly similar things to mine in a very lawlike way - eating three times a day, saying ouch when damaged, etc.
therefore, 4) The obvious explanation for the behaviour of their bodies is that they have minds too.
This argument is inevitably questionable, but I find it totally persuasive. Advocates of the causal closure of the physical will have something to say about (1) but it's not clear that that actually undermines the argument. It might strengthen it.
Granted it doesn't give deductive certainty, but I think it puts the existence of other minds beyond reasonable doubt.
Perhaps another way to say the same thing is to observe the limits of one's own power. Solipsism is hard to escape if you just think in terms of consciousness, as there is nothing in my experience beyond my experience. But there are powers beyond my powers. I can't do what I want. There are powers beyond mine that limit mine. My body is very limited in its power, but it is also a centre of power. Again, the obvious explanation is that other bodies are like mine. They are also centres of power that do what they do because of how they feel.
I'm open to the idea of some kind of cosmic consciousness which our separate consciousnesses are derivative on in some way, and I guess this is a kind of solipsism, but it's not a lonely one, and I note it doesn't bother you as much.
My little thread of awareness, and your little thread of awareness are just temporarily oblivious fragments of the whole.
Trying to escape is creating the fear, and everyone here is kindly helping you to feed your fear. As God you have created the isolation and the other to love, but you are trying to frustrate yourself, because you have become confused. Turn around and embrace what you are running from.
As Russell discusses - I believe in his An Outline of Philosophy - there are degrees of solipsism, as well as degrees of skepticism.
Probably the most radical - yet most consistent - form of solipsism is the view that, only the immediate present exists, whatever is right now, because, for all we know, 2 seconds ago we might have come into existence, yet we cannot rely on memory to show we existed that long ago.
Yet people who may be attracted to solipsism wouldn't go that far.
As for skepticism, sure, it is quite useful, but the most extreme version, Pyrrhonic skepticism, would have people literally standing on roads ignoring cars that may come your way, because the senses may be misleading us.
In fact, it's even worse, we wouldn't bother standing up, as we might fall.
So yes, both are useful, within certain boundaries. Outside this, they lose usefulness and practicality quite quickly.
You are correct. There may be a person now or in the future who may come up with a solution to the problem, we cannot rule this out.
But we should keep in mind that in over 2000 years of philosophy, nobody has yet proven it false, so it is unlikely (but not impossible) to be solved by someone else. We have the same reasoning abilities of the Greeks, not more. Likewise with more recent philosophers.
That said I have been doing the stuff you said for some time since I first read about it, and it worked until I read that post on Quora that day. Now nothing seems to work.
Like even though that day still burns in my mind when I question how you could prove it true I get nothing. You cant conduct an experiment to test it and there is no one you can prove the results to. Even if you proved it there isnt anyone to corroborate your findings, so you cant truly know if youre right or not even if you tested it.
It's driving me crazy.
Of course I disagree. When entertained as a philosophical thesis, subject to rational norms, it's absurd. What is the minimal concept (in an epistemological/metaphysical context) of a world ? Of a self ?
The world is something that I can be wrong about.
The self is the kind of thing that can be wrong about such a world.
The solipsist tries to collapse self and world. The solipsist says 'it's wrong to think there's something I can be wrong about.'
Or he says 'it's all just my dream.' But neither 'my' nor 'dream' can have any meaning here, lacking contrast. I invoke my household god de Saussure here. I think Wittgenstein is saying something similar with: "Here it can be seen that solipsism, when its implications are followed out strictly, coincides with pure realism. The self of solipsism shrinks to a point without extension, and there remains the reality co-ordinated with it."
Do epistemological solipsists say that we might be wrong to think that there's something we could be wrong about ?
This is good sketch of why we do or don't give a damn about such issues. It reminds me of Heidegger. Life is not primarily theoretical. Our 'understanding' is more 'blind' skill or phronesis than method or canon. Courage and empathy are fundamental virtues.
My guess is you need to expand your Self to the surface of your being, your skin. Note the following argument which you presented:
It assumes that you are a mind or brain, experiencing the outputs of your senses, which is contrary to fact. You are also your senses, muscles, skeleton, skin, etc. and there is nothing between you and the rest of the world. See the homunculus fallacy and the Cartesian theater for what is problematic about the argument.
I would suggest going out and being a thing for a while. Go bump around with other things, do what things do, and so on.
Therefore, when you die, people will be born after you're gone and live full/complete lives regardless of/uninfluenced by your death.
You are a part of a community of people experiencing awareness in a human capacity.
Yes you are alone. In the sense that nobody will ever experience life as you did. Ever. No one in the past nor in the future will have the same life you did. In that sense you're completely alone.
But we all share common emotions, feelings and naturally developed ideas about living. We can empathise with one another and in that respect we are not alone. Whatever you feel, probably someone esle has felt the same.
As for solipsism, even identical twins don't grow and develop the same way. They don't occupy the same space, they don't have the same perspective, they don't experience the same things nor do they do exactly the same thing. Both are individuals.
One may die before the other for whatever reasons. Even though genetically they're clones.
Consciousness may be one singular phenomenon. Yet it is shared between sentient beings, of which there are many, those that have died, those that are dying, those that have just been born and ofc everyone in between.
Hooe this helps.
Oh that's a bummer. I would have liked to have seen the proof!
I have tried going out and just being a thing and all that but it doesnt work. Solipsism bleeds into everything that I do.
That also isnt getting around the issue Im having which is what I read that day.
https://www.quora.com/I-m-scared-that-I-will-take-my-life-some-day-because-of-solipsism-Can-someone-help-I-just-want-to-know-if-anything-is-real/answer/Autistic-Salvatore
If we dictate the terms on which we accept anything, it's easy to dismiss everything. But at the basis of skepticism (leading to solipsism) is the truth that there is no fact to give us a foundation of certainty in knowledge; that if we require that threshold criteria, the world does fall apart in our hands, our moral realm becomes unnavigable, others are unknown to us--not as a fantasy, but actually--that these outcomes can be true. There is no refuting this without calling it absurd or illogical or just a theoretical issue, or having god or the Forms save us, or cutting off the need for anything meaningful (abandoning what is essential about anything in barring the thing-in-itself).
Quoting green flag
The skeptic would say that acceptance that we can be wrong does not provide any foundation for our knowledge of the world--they can always fall back on the irrefutable position that everything can be uncertain, wrong. What I am suggesting is that there is a way not to refute skepticism, or dismiss it, without taking the bait that it is necessary to prove our knowledge of the world, because knowledge is not our only relationship to the world and others (see above).
"I am certain that I cannot be certain."
If you are making something like a psychological point, then maybe I agree. One does not reason madness. In the case of this thread, my hypothesis is that the fear of solipsism is actually a fantasy of solipsism. Fear of life, fear of the weight of being in Kundera's sense. One side of the self is terrified by the other.
You may be dealing with a compulsive thought that will not be fixed with a rational argument. Solipsism looks 'existentially' like a denial of the reality of being alive. It reduces life to a video game with no one watching or judging or loving or hating.
Quoting green flag
These are two different senses of certain. I am convinced or sure that I can not have absolute irrefutable knowledge. More to the point though, it is the skeptical conclusion of the solipsist, not their salvation or any kind of refutation of skepticism.
Quoting green flag
Part of the history of analytical philosophy is that Plato and Descartes and Kant and the Tractatus, wanted something particular from philosophy, that is a desire, but not a personal "psychological" feeling. It is a logical prerequisite, which leads to an oversight.
Quoting green flag
Cavell will say there is both. The desire to remove the faulty human from knowledge is also the wish to be unknowable, special, not responsible.
Heh, all I asked is that you challenge yourself and try to change, and yet as predicted, you reject even this and defend the conditions which necessarily lead to your conclusions. This "quora post" is a misdirection that serves to obfuscate the nature of your problem. Your position is that you're a prisoner of an argument you don't even remember, and there's nothing you can do about it? That's insane, that's the dumbest shit I've ever heard, and if you only agreed, it could be so good for you, that's according to you.
I find it ironic that an apparently solipsist is, in fact, such a slave to this imaginary concept of "truth", that shouldn't be possible. If our discussion continued and neither of us changed our position, from an onlooker's perspective, I would appear the solipsist, and you wouldn't.
I would tell you that reality is an illusion, that everything exists from the perspective of the individual, the individual holds a privileged position to dictate what is and isn't true, and to legitimatise their way of interpreting and characterising all concepts and things. You would deny that, and talk to me about the harsh nature of reality, and about being unwilling to compromise when it comes to truth. That's your idea of solipsism? What the fuck?
Can you either link me to a post where you explain what you think solipsism is or outline it for me here? I'm really curious about it now.
I can answer any questions about the posts I have made, but probably the most helpful might be reading the attached essay of Cavell's where he dissects the truth of solipsism from what we feel compelled to make it mean.
Who would refute it though ? And what would refutation mean ? If the self is all there is, there is nothing the self can be wrong or right about. How could logical norms be binding ? If they are binding, then that's already the beginning of the world, something that opposes and restricts the self, something that holds the self responsible. Unless there is something I can be wrong about, what can uncertainty mean ? And if I can be wrong, then there's a world beyond me.
This is not a mathematical proof but an attempt to make visible the basic unintelligibility of solipsism. It's a complicated form of "god is made of however" or "ideas sleep furiously in the green."
I can guess at what you mean, but it's not clear as it stands why desire is not a personal feeling. If you just mean it's a deeper more generous drive, then I agree. It's a 'spiritual' or 'artistic' or 'selftranscending' urge.
Quoting green flag
It would maybe be clearer to say, their argument has a logical prerequisite.
Quoting green flag
They aren't.
Quoting green flag
Lack of justification by knowledge; not being sure--having doubt. Now if we want to say "unless there is something to doubt..." it is not that the skeptic doubts the world exists; they doubt we can be certain it exists.
Quoting green flag
I agree this is not math, but, again, your resorting to calling it unintelligible does not refute it--it's giving up.
I think this other fellow is more on target.
Quoting Judaka
Quoting green flag
Quoting Judaka
Not to drag @Judaka into this, but solipsism is not a better, more powerful position; it is seen as the the only available position, but a powerless one. I cannot know that you exist, or, in a less dramatic example, know your pain. And the idea of "reality", as a quality everything has or that we compare things against, is the measure that makes the world illusory to us.
Quoting Judaka.
And although many of the conclusions of solipsism can be doubted, the truth of it is that knowledge fails to provide us with certainty of others and our world.
For example, in Metaphysical Solipsism "other minds" do exist empirically, in the sense of experiences that the subject has direct access to, even if the literal notion of other minds is considered to be unintelligible. Therefore, according to Metaphysical solipsism, empirical skepticism regarding the existence of "other minds" is unintelligible; Thus metaphysical solipsism is in agreement with analytic behaviourism.
Only in epistemological solipsism is there skepticism regarding the existence of either "other minds" or other minds, which is due to a Cartesian worldview that interprets sense-data and thought as being mere representation, which can lead to doubt as to whether there is anything behind the representation.
Psychological solipsists embrace the doubt of the epistemological solipsist to deny the existence of other minds. But in contrast to the metaphysical solipsist, they do not consider their personal sense-data as having constitutional relevance with respect to their concept of "other minds"
Quoting Darkneos
The two quotes above clearly demonstrate the morass you have twisted yourself up in.
A threat of your own creation, in the form of an obsession regarding a quora post, whose content, YOU CANT REMMBER but are convinced it was very significant. If you could find it, we could tear it to shreads for you, but you cant find it, and you are using this as an excuse for being unable to break out of your self-inflicted miasma. There is no monster under your bed, it only exists in your head!
You misery is self-sustained, it is where you currently EXIST. You need to break the cycle or continue to suffer.
You are choosing to live life as a curse. That's irrational!
I would be able to put it all behind me if not for the day for some reason. But I cant remember any part of what it said which is killing me.
This isnt a choice, though, youre wrong there
Well, I accept that 'addiction' of any kind can seem invincible, but many have broken such obsessions before. I have never heard an ex-addict, claim that they are totally free of their addiction, or that someone with obsessive compulsive disorder, ever fully conquers it, but they have reduced such to a level of daily insignificance, that allows them to stop living their life as a curse.
I think my friends personal hell, that was triggered by his personal contemplations of the notion of infinity, is very similar to your 'solipsism' obsession. He came through his obsession, does that not offer you some hope, that you can do the same?
I think this means youre not reading what Im writing and missing the issue Im having.
Ive told you I challenged myself on this and it didnt work. I do it every time it comes up and nothing sticks. The main reason now is that alleged Quora post and nothing else. Its not a misdirection its the truth.
I know its dumb and irrational to fall prey to something I dont remember, dont know is true, etc. But what I know is how I felt after I read or saw it and that feeling came from them proving it true, or at least me thinking it did.
Youre not meeting me where I am and just talking about you and what you would do.
Except those addictions are grounded in reality and you can know theyre bad and serve nothing. Its different from a philosophical position that not only you cant prove wrong but you allegedly found someone who proved it right and that left such an imprint on your heart that nothing helps.
Now at this point it would feel like Im lying to myself to say and or pretend other people exist. I cant live a life like that, pretending Im feeling something or caring about someone that doesnt truly feel the same to me. I just cant imagine living like that.
Here's where I think we are at. Solipsism isn't logically coherent, but the issue, in my opinion, isn't really logic. There's something irrational and emotional driving the logic. I know of similar issues with suicidal ideation. The internal monologue compulsively and constantly rehearses justifications for suicide, as if a demon sat on the person's shoulder whispering self-destructive advice in his ear. Another version is compulsive wanting to say 'fuck God' or some other kind of blasphemy, as if a repressed attitude is boiling over. The self is only ideally a unity, one might say. As we get older, we hopefully integrate more and more and obtain a relatively constant sense of self-control and self-esteem.
Good mention!
This stuff happens, and I think we agree it's not essentially about the concepts involved, because most of the time we can safely play with these ideas.
Yep, it's like the 'lemming affect,' that many people experience when they don't like heights.
My mother has this, and she will say she hates heights, as she has an irrational, but very strong compulsion, to throw herself off. She is normally a very stable, rational, quite happy person. This 'lemming affect,' is quite common in people afraid of heights, but very few if any such people actually, do throw themselves off the edge due to this, they are far more likely to move away from it, and avoid the situation whenever they can. It's always very sad indeed, when a person is overcome and defeated, by such as addiction and obsession. The rest of us can only try our best to do what we can to help prevent such.
It's tough being human. I've been reading The Denial of Death lately. It really brings home what an accomplishment it is to operate with relative sanity. We are like gods stuffed in dying meat. It's a weird thing to learn to have fun with.
Quoting Darkneos
Yes but that desire is what allows the skeptic to see the truth that we do not have foundational, unreproachable knowledge of others and the worldthat the impetus to solipsism is true. Isnt that what you were looking for, one way or the other?
It's also the most awesome and wonderous adventure ever, imo.
It can be beautiful and amazing indeed. I know that those current tormented will only be further nauseated by that kind of talk, just as I have been when I was low. Terror and wonder and beauty and diamonds and diarrhea.
It sounds like a bad situation. I think you should consider getting some professional help. I've wrestled with negative compulsive thoughts before, and it's something a person can get over. At least I did, and it's been a long long time since I've wrestled with that kind of problem. I remember it was terrible.
Sure, misery loves company, but I refuse to play that game, to the extent that it dampens my joy in choosing life over living it as a curse.
:up:
Nietzsche wrote of the necessity of a hard heart, and I think he was right. This doesn't mean I don't like being kind. But life is indeed pointless is if it's a sin to enjoy it just because others can't.
I also agree that the value of life is undecidable in terms of strict logic. I can't prove that birth is an evil fate or a wonderful blessing. I express myself in such a judgment. I even commit myself perhaps. The envelope is the letter. Some 'prophecies' (expectations) are largely self-fulfilling.
I approach it similarly to the way Alven Plantinga argues for the rationality of theism. Demonstrating rationality is distinct from proving something true. It's rational to believe ~solipsism because:
1) a natural world that produces creatures who's survival depends on successfully interacting with the external environment would entail the creatures having an innate (pre-semantic/pre-abstraction) knowledge that there is an external world.
2) Applying abstract reasoning to our innate understanding of the world entails ~solipsism
3) it is rational to maintain a belief that has not been defeated. Solipsism is logically possible, but mere possibility is not a defeater.
The possbility of solipsism is nothing more than a thought experiment. It demonstrates that we necessarily have basic beliefs at rock bottom. A belief like this, that is a result of the structure of the world, is basic "in the proper way" (as Plantinga puts it); i.e. its "properly basic".
Also Im not sure this is it but I think I found a post that says it proves it: https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-prove-solipsism/answer/Tonio-Barmadosa
Of course, I'm not, in a thread where you've asked for "help moving past solipsism" you've adamantly defended your position, choices and values to everyone who replied to you. You say "I've tried to challenge myself and it didn't work", all I see is someone who absolutely refuses to challenge themselves on even the most minor of points.
You're unwilling to be challenged by others, gave up on challenging yourself, and will only defend yourself against any and all criticism. You're compelled by an argument you don't remember, and say you can do nothing about it. If I meet you where you are, I've accepted your position is hopeless.
I am meeting you exactly where you are, I'm just not accepting what you say as truth, because it's not the truth. I could debate you on solipsism, but I've seen your replies to others who attempted that. You gave short, dismissive replies, and I'd just get the same, it was obvious to me that you aren't going to be convinced the way you want to be.
You haven't even explained your position on solipsism and apparently refuse to do so, we need to undermine the quora post's argument instead, but without knowing it. Under these conditions, it's 100% impossible to change your mind there either, you seemingly demand that I choose only paths that necessarily result in you believing in solipsism, or else I'm not doing what you want. You also refuse to challenge any of your interpretations or characterisations surrounding solipsism, you don't see how that makes progress impossible?
Well fine, I hope some months down the line, you try to challenge yourself again and explore new methods until you find success. If you actually give me your position on solipsism I'll respond, I'm sure it's trash and can be debunked easily, considering it's completely illogical to be devoted to concepts like truth and reality, while also believing the universe exists in your mind. Otherwise, good luck to you, I hope find the courage to try again somewhere down the line.
Then you'd be wrong. I have done that but it hasn't worked out.
Quoting Judaka
Again that is not true. I am willing to be challenged but so far nothing that has been said isn't something I haven't already done to myself.
Quoting Judaka
Again I'm trying each day. But so far all you have done is say challenge yourself, which means nothing. You call it nonsense but that doesn't work. Doesn't help when I see some people take it seriously like this:
https://vernonpress.com/file/7502/e19b0d05052691e5d1fa06f3a2939a5f/1543562412.pdf
Which does explain it.
Solipsism as I see it is that I am alone. There is no external world, other people don't exist and are just figments of my mind with no real emotions. There wouldn't be anything to do or achieve because it would just be me, alone with no one else to recognize me. There would be no point in living in such a reality.
I already explained why I can't find the post on Quora.
Your paths so far suck, to be blunt. One of them is saying find stuff against it with the most confirmation bias. But confirmation bias is a bad thing, something you want to avoid doing. Proposing it as a solution leaves me wondering when it is ok to do it and when not to, especially since it's generally considered a flaw.
I fight this each day but nothing seems to work against it and I don't know how much longer I can keep it up.
http://bc.upjp2.edu.pl/Content/5621/35_PDFsam_Ca?o??%20ze%20znakiem%20wodnym3.pdf
In short, the proof involves the fact that
I know I exist because I have a first person point of view in my world
Other things have a third person point of view in my world
Things are not both first person and third person point of view at the same time in my world
Hence, only I have first person point of view in my world.
If other things had first person point of view in my world, then they would be me
Since other things dont have first person point of view in my world, they are not me
Only I have first person point of view in my world, because that is who I am.
Now, we established that only I have first person point of view in my world. So there is only one me in my world. Now lets go into how many worlds are there?
Each person has the first person point of view in their world
There are a bunch of worlds out there
I know that I am in world number 234, because thats where the first person point of view is
That means the first person point of view is not in other worlds
Hence, other worlds dont have a me
Hence, in whole reality there is only one first person point of view, which is me
Other things do not have first person point of view
Point 14. proves solipsism to be true OBJECTIVELY. Lets see a contradition
Lets say other worlds also had first person point of view
This implies which world I live in is unspecified, because there is not enough information available
I know that I am in world number 234, because I exist in that world
Hence, the information to tell me which world I am in cannot remain unspecified, it must exist
Hence, point 16 and 18 are contradictions.
It is the existance of the first person point of view itself that tells me which world I live in. If there are multiple first person point if views in multiple words, then my world could not be determined for me, to know that I exist in that specific world. Since I clearly know that I exist in which world, this information cannot remains ambigous or unspecified. In order to make the information specific, there can only be one such information, which means one first person point of view can only exist in the entire universe, not just in my world. Q. e. d
This also implies that
If there is a subjective world, there can only be one such subjective world
Multiple subjective worlds coexisting leads to a contradiction in any one subjective world
There is at least one subjective world, because I exist in such
My world is not contradictory
Hence, its only I that exist
This is the math one:
http://bc.upjp2.edu.pl/Content/5621/35_PDFsam_Ca%C5%82o%C5%9B%C4%87%20ze%20znakiem%20wodnym3.pdf
Where I think he proves it mathematically.
Honestly I feel like the less of this I do the better. Hopefully I can just forget about it.
To quote the math one:
The reason I recommend confirmation bias is that I evaluate perspectives by what they produce, I do not recommend using "truth" and logic as measuring sticks for the value of a perspective. By your account, your belief in solipsism is making you miserable, for me, that is all I need to hear to judge your belief. If your belief is based on truth, is logical, and causes you to be miserable, then it is garbage. I thought you might be closer to agreeing with this, since you made a thread, looking for solipsism to be wrong, but instead, you present yourself as a slave to truth, you're trapped by solipsism being true and you only wish it wasn't.
What did you gain by being "correct" about solipsism? What's so good about your refusal to use confirmation bias to stop being "correct" about solipsism? Who decided it was good? If solipsism was the truth, but believing it made me miserable, I would use dishonest thinking to disprove it, so I could be happy. It makes no sense to me why you've got such a loyalty to truth.
That being said... many of my own views are dangerously close to solipsism, only, it does not cause any sadness in me. I too see no merit in accomplishing anything in this world, I don't think anything has any value beyond what a person asserts, and I self-describe as a nihilist. Unlike you, I start with where I want to be, such as, I want to be happy and confident, and I build my perspective to achieve that. You say "only stupid people believe what makes them happy", and I'm shocked, a solipsist who regards truth as the highest good? As a solipsist, you're attacking the very heart of truth, how can you then regard confirmation bias as wrong? It baffles me.
Your "math one" is aiming to prove a consistent internal logic to solipsism.
2. More generally, there can be no deductive refutation of this solipsism
employing only premises a committed solipsist would accept: all logically
correct derivations from solipsistically true premises lead to conclusions
that are solipsistically true as well. Any route to a successful refutation of
solipsism must travel via nondeductive inferential paths
That might well be right, but then, the author would likely then agree, that by employing premises that a committed solipsist wouldn't accept, solipsism mightn't survive. I am not arguing that solipsism can't have a consistent and valid logic to it. Even if solipsism contains irrefutable premises that necessarily lead to the stated conclusion, even that wouldn't be enough. One could simply argue that another set of premises is more important, and more crucial to look at, or simply by insisting that some premise has been ignored and must be considered.
Anyway, I don't know why I bothered to respond, I didn't ask you to send me some arguments you googled or whatever. I wanted to hear it explained in your own words. Why is a solipsist even giving me the arguments of others... The ones you think aren't real? Your entire position is so all over the place.
I'm convinced now, you didn't come to be a solipsist by introspection, it's something else. I'm called a solipsist because I attack the concepts of truth and reality, I emphasise the importance of the perception of the individual. And they talk about reality, truth, and logic and scoff at me for daring to think these concepts unimportant. You're a solipsist who prizes truth above all else, who proclaims things "objectively true", who prides himself on thinking in a way best suited to arriving at truth, and who detests ways of thinking that lead to inaccuracies. That is the exact opposite of solipsism, this is someone who has absolute faith in the foundations of reality and embraces and believes in a standard set of epistemological tools.
No offence, but I think others have hit this on the head, this is the result of some obsession of yours, it is not a logically consistent system of thought. I see a complete disconnect between how you think and what you value, and how that can conclude in solipsism. The only thing I can think of is that for some reason, you've been mesmerised by the idea and you're stuck. I realise that you won't accept that answer and that it's not an answer appropriate to a debate, but it's what I think all the same.
I'm not interested in going through a 50-page essay and reporting to you about it, as much as you hate confirmation bias, if I'm right, then you are looking for essays like this that prove solipsism. I doubt the essay even represents your opinion, it is what you searched for to justify your conclusion. Everything about the way you've conducted yourself on this thread is telling me that you are not going to change your mind on this.
Maybe you'll remember my words someday and make them work for you, maybe not of course, but it's clear to me that you're not ready to change right now. That I'm far from the first to conclude and thus shouldn't be overlooked, I imagine most posters will end up thinking the same as me if they don't already.
In saying the skeptic and the other are not in the skeptic's world together, is to say that the skeptic does not know whether the other is them (the skeptic), or whether the other's point of view is the same, say, their pain is just like the skeptic's, so that they would exist, based on the ground that the skeptic takes themselves to.
Given that doubt, that lack of certain knowledge about the other, "there is only one 'me' in my world." From that requirement for the existence of the other, there is no stopping the conclusion that follows.
Quoting Darkneos
The converse of not having knowledge of the other, is that I cannot explain myself to anyone either. I am inexpressible; no one can know me--no world has whatever is unique to me fully out of me, in it.
Quoting Darkneos
Thus, if there is to be a me, a me that I am certain of, then no one can have the ability to see me, to know me in the same way I want to be sure of myself. So the other cannot exist, as they threaten the grounds of my existence because they may know me better than I know myself, and then what do I know if not even myself?
This is a long boring way of supporting 'I think therefore I am.'
Quoting Darkneos
Point one means nothing. What 'worlds' is Mr Barmadosa referring to, other planets? other people?
If its other people, then this point disputes solipsism.
World number 234 is just an arbitrary BS proposal.
The first person point of view is just 'I think therefore I am,' and Mr Barmadosa offers no proof of the existence of his notion of 'other worlds' nor does he explain what this notion is supposed to represent.
What does he mean by 'whole reality?' The whole of reality CAN include other minds. He in no way PROVES that this is no possible, so this is not sound logic. The whole of reality DOES NOT SUGGEST that only one mind source CAN exist.
Point 14, in no way PROVES solipsism, These 14 points are riddled with pure speculation and flawed assumptions. The propositional logic it offers is almost childishly poor.
Quoting Darkneos
This is total crap! It ignores these equally valid statements:
Lets say this world has currently around 8 billion first person point of views (ignoring non-human fauna.)
This implies the world I live in is clearly specified, because there is compelling information.
Quoting Darkneos
Random BS presupposition.
Quoting Darkneos
A poor projection of a flawed statement.
The information available, clearly DOES specify that Mr Barmadosa is in a world of (currently) 8 billion 'I think therefore I am,' minds. I can only assume you are easily duped!
Quoting Darkneos
Yeah number 234! :lol: :rofl:
In what way does the above statement PROVE that other 'first person point of view's,' cannot also exist in world number 234? OR that Mr Barmadosa's notion of other 'worlds,' actually refers to the existence of other minds and in fact, disputes solipsism.
Quoting Darkneos
But, it is just as valid to state:
If there are multiple first person points of view in ONE world, then my world CAN BE determined and Mr Barmadosa CAN ACCEPT that he exists in that single world.
Quoting Darkneos
The first sentence here makes no sense, as it has too many English language errors.
The second sentence does not follow in any way whatsoever, as all the points made in this Quora post are subjective and are easily challenged. QED my arse!!
Quoting Darkneos
The first sentence is pure speculation, and equalled by 'If there is NO subjective world.'
The second sentence invokes the observation that;
One subjection or multiple subjections are all just subjections.
It's like religions, there are many of them and they all contradict each other, on many points, so they cannot all be true! BUT, they could all be false.
The third sentence is valid but does not PROVE that ONLY he exists in that world.
His world is 'not contradictory,' due to the existence of billions of other independent minds, existing in it, along with him. Hence this is not proof that it is only him, that exists.
Seriously, this utter tosh makes you think that only YOU exist!!!
So under solipsism, Mr Barmabosa is actually an aspect of you? and so am I, who thinks Mr Barmabosa is very confused, and totally wrong, which means that you think YOU are totally correct and totally wrong about the exact same point, at the same moment in time! :rofl:
Mathematically, that would mean that in your single existent world, you believe x is true and false at the exact same moment in time. This shows how bad your logic is here, as the logic law of non-contradiction is fundamental in propositional logic.
But in my case the way out isnt through. Every thing Ive read just seems to erode my mind a little more each day. Like with the math one saying that any axioms one takes can be adopted by the solipsist while also saying that premises that are solipsistically true lead to solipsism.
So its more or less saying everything leads to solipsism.
Im not a solipsist otherwise I wouldnt be talking to other people and asking for their advice. I want to move past it but I want to make sure Im not missing anything that could be used against me. I want to be happy but so far trying to ignore this, forget about it, or argue against it hasnt worked out. I wish it did so I can just move on with my life. I want to be happy.
I know Im stuck and I dont know how to get unstuck. Im also scared by the thought that it might be true and just imagining myself acting like its not true while knowing it is.
Quoting Judaka
Youd have to check it. Im willing to change my mind and I want to, if you think otherwise then you havent been reading this thread. I want nothing more than to forget about all of this and move on with my life. My opinion is that its not true and I dont believe it so.
But I cant get over it on my own and I need others to tell me if these people are right or not. Im not trying to justify any conclusion, I want it to be wrong so Im seeking out anything that could be used against me and striking it down so that nothing could ever again possibly lead me back here.
Im wondering what you think of the math one.
Its why I need help with the math link, after that I can let it all go and just move on with my life never having to think about it again.
Youre just reading the wrong works. I appreciate the effort in reading the Cavell. Where did you stop understanding it? If you can work to formulate questions, I can probably answer them (no one understands meaningful philosophy at first glance; its process requires your becoming someone different). The most important part is the end where he finds the truth of skepticism (that solipsism is real and an ongoing threat) and then analyzing the uses of knowledge to find the route of acknowledgement as our human relation towards others (apart from insisting on knowledge of them that is certain). I stand ready to help if you are willing to put in the work, but, yes, stop reading anything that is attempting to dismiss or disprove solipsism (and ignore @Judaka and @green flag tell you youre crazy or that the position is ridiculous) as it is a important part of the human condition.
@jgill is the main maths guy on TPF, imo. He might look at it for you but Its a big ask, as its a big doc.
I'm tired of waking up everyday feeling like this and having these thoughts. I just want to be happy.
I just want to know if the links I give prove it or not (and I'm REALLY hoping they don't) and if they don't, truly don't then I'm done with it. No more googling, no more, just...no. I want to be happy and live the rest of my days in peace and not stressing over this stuff.
That's why I left the math link and the one from Vernon Press. And I know it's a huge ask but it's why I often post this stuff for others to take a look because I don't really get it and knowing how my mind works it would just do more harm than good.
But I greatly appreciate the help with this and the links. It means more than you can know.
Well, if @jgill cant help, then perhaps there is another on TPF with high maths credentials, who would have a look at the link.
Quoting Darkneos
What Im telling you is, yes, what leads to the conclusion of solipsism is true about our human condition. But having certainty that others exist, knowing that, is not the only consequence of the truth of the skepticism that leads to solipsism, as knowledge of the other and the world is not our only connection.
And you will not forget about this because your isolation and doubt and disconnection are based on something true. The danger of philosophy is why Socrates was killed, why Descartes Meditations was not taught to young adults, and why Wittgenstein kept telling people to give up on philosophy after his conclusions in the Tractatus. It is too late for you , however, so I would use your mind to overcome your mind.
I'm not sure what you mean by that exactly.
Quoting Antony Nickles
That doesn't help much but I think I can forget about it as long as I stop feeding it and focus on other stuff, or at least see a therapist about it. Some comments are right, this is an obsession and I have a tendency to obsesses a lot over stuff (I think that comes with being on the spectrum).
The way this would work is that you ask a question about which part or parts you don't understand, or, even better, you take a stab at echoing or paraphrasing what you think was said, or you assume you know what was said and disagree, stating your objections.
Quoting Darkneos
A therapist is not going to help you with a philosophical problem like solipsism, though they can help with reasons for turning our human condition of being separate from others into an intellectual problem where we think we are lacking some knowledge. I would suggest both, especially given that you will come back to it again and again, but I t doesn't sound like you are ready to work on the philosophy yet. I ask that you not post here again unless you are serious, as you must realize you've wasted the time of earnest people actually trying to do philosophy here. If you continue in this vein, I will ask that you be banned until you can convince the admins of your sincerity in wanting to do the work. Good luck.
The late Dr McCarty seems to have been a man of many talents, including studies of logic. Beyond me, I fear. The length of this piece is challenging on its own. I didn't get far. @TonesinDeepFreeze might find it interesting. The idea of relating math to solipsism is bizarre (to me, at least).
I've tried to do that work but I just can't. I have to ask people to help me out because philosophy has always been something daunting to me that I can't seem to get around. I try to do the work but I guess, to put it bluntly, I'm not smart enough to get it.
What I meant is that do you mean we cant really be certain of anything or that solipsism is true? Im struggling to figure out what you mean.
Do you not see the strangeness here ? The way this bites itself ?
It's a strange phenomenon, the way this kind of skepticism that speaks (not you personally) thoughtlessly projects itself with an almost infinite arrogance about what others cannot know.
Somehow O somehow the skeptic trapped behind screens which might always be lying...knows that I too, if I somehow exist against all odds, must definitely also be trapped in a world of lying screens.
O ye skeptic of little faith and less humility ! Have ye not thought that I may yet walk with God beyond those walls that ye take for the world entire ?
I'm joking. I don't claim to walk with God. But wouldn't a real skeptic (in genuine doubt rather than theory of knowledge hubris) just not know much about me or about God ?
Quoting green flag
But the skeptic wants to be sure about you or deny you entirely. Granted, "exist", is a loaded word, but, non-metaphysically, we are still talking about you not mattering, me not wanting to be responsible to you personally, to acknowledge your claim on me, thus the skeptic's insistence on science, which draws its conclusions regardless of the individual; and their need for the world to be "real", creating frameworks like objective, reality, consciousness, etc.
Quoting jgill
Mr Gill is a maths professor!
I hope he does not mind me pasting the following paragraph from his profile:
"Retired professor of mathematics from a branch of a state university. I've published some research but nothing of any real consequence. I continue to explore certain elementary dynamical systems in the complex plane because it's enjoyable to do so."
Surely his last sentence above should speak volumes to you.
Also if he find's this document cumbersome to dissect then YOU nor I certainly, can't make heads or tails of it! So you are all twisted up about a maths document you have NO understanding of.
Come on friend, you are self-flagillating here.
Perhaps as @jgill suggested, @TonesInDeepFreeze may be able to assist you further.
Thank you for your input, I appreciate your assistance.
Intuitionistic logic, which corresponds to the mainstream Cartesian conception of computation in terms of the Church Turing Thesis, or equivalently, the behaviour of the ideal solitary computer, might be said to be solipsistic, since this logic makes the following assumptions:
1) Truth and theorem-proving are equivalent.
2) "Computation" is describable in terms of the solitary activity of an ideal individual making up rules and following them consistently, without any interaction with his environment playing a role in the meaning of "computation", whereby theorem-proving is considered to be a tautological exercise.
Classical logic on the other hand, accepts 2), but drops assumption 1) by it's appeal to The Law of Excluded Middle, which allows it to infer theorems for which there is no step-wise constructive proof.
This is the reason why many mathematicians are platonists; By rejecting assumption 1 they reject the idea that mathematics is a product of their minds, and yet by accepting assumption 2 they are also forced into rejecting the idea that meaning of mathematics is contingent upon events in the real world. The only way they can resolve the resulting dilemma is by positing an external platonic world of mathematical meaning.
Since the seventies, Computer science has slowly begun to break free of the the cartesian conception of computation, by questioning, if not rejecting, assumption 2), mostly as a result of needing to invent new logics for dealing with the empirical contingencies of computer-program IO. See for instance, the reactive-programming paradigm that concerns the problem of how to write programs to consistently reason with input-streams of data that are potentially-infinite and outside the control of the program.
Ethics sidelines solipsism. Morals are incompatible with solipsism. Concern for others renders solipsism irrelevant.
uncyclopedia
wikipedia
iep
sep
Anyway, it seems more like an emotional/psychological problem here, than philosophical?
That's fair. Im sorry I didn't adequately explain/provide enlightenment on the topic at hand. What is the key issue you face so I might come up with something solutional or at least a decent counterargument/view for you to mull over?
These three parts of the link which when read together sounds to me like all paths lead to solipsism, though I'm very doubtful about my interpretation.
I just needed help understanding if he's saying what I think he's saying, if he's not then I can dump all this behind me and let it go. But I'm asking all over and haven't been able to find someone who either can or will do it.
So all you need to do now, is describe EXACTLY what you think he is saying.
Do it sentence by sentence and then 'we' can respond to your concerns!
Yet Im very doubtful about my interpretation of this as it doesnt seem to match other areas in his work.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-chief-applications-of-philosophical-solipsism/answer/David-Moore-408
Though I think I am doing better since this doesnt seem like a good answer. There are no applications to it. Its a dead end. The assertion is the conclusion .
Though I disagree with his use of the word verify in the answer since you cant verify it. I do agree with him that it is useless though since well you cant do anything with it. At least other philosophies have ACTUAL applications to them, namely ethics.
But what do yall think of it?
Do you ever get something wrong? Well, how could it be wrong if it's your creation in the first place?
You can't do just anything, right? I, for one, can't just leap from the front yard and fly to the Moon (like Superman); I'll just assume you can't either. Something else, the world, is imposing itself on you.
If you're thoroughly applying skepticism, then you might also want to apply it to skepticism itself now and then.
I suppose thinking it's all you, there aren't other minds, is presumptuous, maybe arrogant, surely rude. :)
Though the accusations of being arrogant or rude aren't points to use against someone with solipsism. At it's heart is the real issue that we cannot be truly certain, and I can empathize with that fear at first hit.
To call people like that ignorant, callous, narcissists, rude, etc, is to me just being foolish.
Solipsism doesn't have to be a playground where you can do whatever you want (though I think the justifications some use to argue for that are just nonsense and it gets to a point where they're just clutching at straws to prop it up).
We cannot "get out of our own heads" so to speak, so that is why no one can prove solipsism or disprove it.
That said despite what I've read in the links and all that I'm still firmly committed to other people existing, outside world, etc. But it's challenging to keep that faith.
Actually going through some answers is helping me see how ridiculous it is. Especially stuff like this. Stuff I perceive is a part of me? Last I checked my pillow wasnt part of me, despite my strongest wishes.
Not exactly a sentence by sentence breakdown of what you think the text you are concerned about is saying, but taking your response at face value:
An axiom:
[i]As a noun, is a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true, for example, "the axiom that sport builds character"
Similar concepts are, accepted truth, general truth, dictum, truism, principle.[/i]
So quite a range of nuances in that list of similar concepts.
In MATHEMATICS:
An axiom is a statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based.
Important to appreciate here then the words 'abstractly defined structure.'
This reminds me of ideas like 'virtual reality' or 'virtual particles.'
They are ABSTRACT MODELS of reality BUT THEY ARE NOT REAL. Solipsism is the same.
In quantum physics, it is said that 'virtual particles,' pop in and pop out OF EXISTENCE, in the EMPTY vacuum of space. Virtual particles ARE NOT REAL, they are mathematical models of what is happening in REALITY. Something is popping in and out of existence, in what we currently label empty space but we can only model, what it really is. Solipsism merely MODELS a POSSIBILITY, dictated by logic, that cannot be PROVED wrong, BUT it also cannot be demonstrated as REAL. It's the same for the concept of god or infinity. You CANNOT demonstrate the biggest number, BUT you also CANNOT PROVE, the biggest number DOES NOT EXIST.
It would therefore be irrational for someone to 'fixate' on the fact that you cannot demonstrate infinity.
This thought, would trigger my friends bipolar 'mind quakes' or 'shutdowns,' as he used to label them. He is now able to rationalise away, his urge, to cause his brain to 'livelock,' in mad counting modes, that he could not control, until he was almost 'fitting' or 'quaking.'
You are doing something akin to this imo, with your irrational thinking on solipsism. YOU CAN 'retrain' your brain to simply 'reject' your old ways of thinking about solipsism and train your brain to accept the CORRECT alternative conclusion about solipsism.
1. Solipsism cannot be DISPROVEN.
2. Solipsism cannot be PROVEN.
Retraining your brain to accept that statement 2 above has far more supporting evidence than statement 1 is your path to a more peaceful mindset, that does not suffer from regular intolerable mind quakes.
Hello Darkneos,
I am sorry that you are being tormented by solipsism: I hope that you find a way to overcome the negative impact it has had on you!
Let me try to give a brief remedy, but let me first note that this is from my perspective (so I am importing my philosophical positions): do what you will with it.
Firstly, one must understand what aspects of solipsism are irrefutable and which arent. In its most generic form, it is the view that only ones self exists, that only ones mind exists, or that only ones consciousness exists (or all three)but these are entirely different things! A self is what one is identical to, a mind is a faculty of reason, and consciousness can be described as awareness and sensibility. Therefore, to me, a self is a will, a mind is the faculty of reason which gets its obligations from oneself (i.e., a will), and consciousness is just the ability to or/and actuality of sensations and awareness.
The solipist could be arguing that they can only know of their own self (which is a will), but, in that case, we can clearly acquire from our experience that there are other wills (regardless of whether they stem back, ultimately, to one will or many). They could be arguing that they can only know of their own mind (e.g., do other people have thoughts?), but we can infer very reasonably that other people think (and thusly have a mind): just ask me to do a hard (or honestly even easy) math problem and take note of how long it takes me to come up with an answer. They could be arguing that they can only know that they are conscious (i.e., aware and sensing), but, to me, we can know they are aware: just watch a human for 30 minutes and note their concerns, as concern is what is fundamentally awareness; and we can know people sense: watch someone get stabbed. However, what the solipsist is going to note, which is the irrefutable part, is simply that one cannot know that all of these observable reactions and interactions with other people (previously described) arent a product of something other than what we would infer (e.g., how do you know that they all arent mechanical robotsphilosophical zombies?); and I cant say with absolute certainty that they are wrong.
But lets think about it for a second: I can provide extreme skepticism to virtually anything. For example, lets say you are in the company of two people who are essentially foil characters (i.e., they have complete opposite personalities) and I point out to you that you cant be 100% sure that their wills arent ultimately one will (i.e., how do you know that, in reality in the sense of what transcends our current experience of the two, that they arent really a part of one will expressing itself differently?). Can you refute it? No. However, can you really ever know either way? No. Can you know that they have two different personalities and are embodied by two different bodies? Yes. Isnt that enough to treat them like two different wills? These kinds of extreme skepticism simply removed the ability to be absolutely certain about empirical things, but that doesnt mean it is valid to affirm their claims (e.g., just because it is logically possible that they are one will, deep down in reality, doesnt entail that it is the most cogent belief to accept).
Likewise, lets say they are actually right (that there are philosophical zombies, with no minds, no consciousness, and lets say no wills of their own): does that change your experience of them? No. Are you justified in doing abhorrent things to them now that you know? No. Are you alone?. NO: you still interact with them, can talk to them, they can relate to you, they can love you, you can love themand why would it matter that you are able to think of your own accord while they cannot?
Secondly, the fact that you think solipsism is true and that it is making you suffer are two separate things: and the latter, I would argue, is the only problem. Right now, I am presuming that you are thinking that the solution to eradicating your torment (suffering) is to find a refutation of solipsism, but that is no permanent cure. Suffering is the attachment to what is outside of ones control, and it appears as though you are attached to the idea that other people can think of their own accord, can feel (in the sense of consciousness), etc.; but you cant control the truth pertaining thereto--so why fret about it? Now, I know that fret is not something one can just shut off on a whim, or on a thought, but I would strongly suggest looking into stoic philosophy (such seneca and marcus aurelius) and start practicing and working at detaching from what is outside of your control: just because the world is a particular way which is outside of your control, does not mean you need to suffer about it. Again, I totally understand that you cant control it immediately: but you can indirectly work towards reshaping yourself to eliminate that suffering (if that makes any sense).
With respect to depersonalization and derealization: I also had that. I no longer do (in a unhealthy sense) because I detached from everything outside of my control and realized that what is real is experience (the direct): it is acquiring answers to transcendent (and unattainable) questions which torment us the most. We suffer more often in imagination than in reality Seneca.
Theres much more to say, but hopefully this provides a bit of insight.
Bob
So you're saying I got the definition of axiom confused here?
There is one that I grazed that my brain keeps trying to pull me back to:
https://vernonpress.com/file/7502/e19b0d05052691e5d1fa06f3a2939a5f/1543562412.pdf
But so far I'm able to resist the urges and what they say to me. Though that is why I ask other people to look at this stuff in my stead because I know what happens if I try to, and I'm hoping someone could take a look at the above. I do appreciate people doing this for me though, I just more or less know how my brain works.
I know that people ask me to do the work when it comes to philosophy but when I try reading stuff I get sucked in and just assume that the person who wrote is right and that this is new data entering my brain thus rendering old data obsolete. I have to remind myself philosophy isn't science, different metrics and methods.
I would push back and say that if they were philosophical zombies then yes that would change my experience of them.
I'm fine more and more with the idea that solipsism is in provable/disprovable etc. I just struggle when I see papers like the ones I linked so far making me doubt if I am wrong. Again I'm pretty doubtful about my interpretation of the math one but I'm not versed in math to check what he's saying. The vernon press one I'm not touching either, though my brain keeps obsessing over bits and lines in that text and it's really hard for me to reject the COMPULSION to open old wounds again. It's also making me think that he proved it true as well.
I understand what people mean by doing the work when it comes to philosophical inquiry, but that doesn't work for everyone and definitely not for me. Not only can I not read those papers (TBH I'm surprised I managed that much from the math one) but I don't get the arguments they use. It's why I need other people to help because they get it, I'm (to be blunt) not smart enough to.
It's why I need their help with the papers so I can put it all behind me.
Though I will say Seneca was right, we do suffer more in imagination than reality.
Then follow it, stay on it, it leads to a better place for you!
Quoting Darkneos
No, you have the significance of such wrong. An axiom, a syllogism, a hypothesis, etc.
THESE ARE LITTLE STORIES!!! which DOES NOT MAKE THEM TRUE!!!
Solipsism has NOT been PROVEN to be true, and it never will be!
So, let your mind make peace with that!
How would it change your experience of them?
I reviewed your first, initial board post and I dont see any linked papers making mathematical claims about solipsism: did I just miss it? What math argument are you referring to?
It sounds like to me the issue is not that it might be true, but that, for some reason, you would be tormented by the fact that it is true. Why does it bother you that it could be true?
My friend, you underestimate yourself! How are you ever going to be able to hold views and ideas for yourself (as your own) if you rely on everyone else to give you theirs? Abide by what you think is true, not what other people necessarily say. Use their views to sharpen your own. I believe in you!
What makes me worried about this sentence is that it seems like you are thinking the solution is to prove solipsism is false (or to, at least, disprove those worrying papers you read): you must understand why it makes you upset in the case it is true and root that out, then it wont matter anymore.
Bob
http://bc.upjp2.edu.pl/Content/5621/35_PDFsam_Ca?o??%20ze%20znakiem%20wodnym3.pdf
But if philosophical zombies were real then it would affect how I feel and treat people. Since they dont have feelings or care about me then I would be colder, it would also leave me hugely depressed.
https://www.quora.com/Is-solipsism-unfalsifiable-and-therefore-should-be-dismissed/answer/Johans-Work
Like this one claiming it is falsifiable, and then proceeding to show they have no idea what falsifiable even means.
Yes it exists as an idea and yea it has effects if you choose to act as though it is true but thats not being falsifiable. Falsifiable means we are able to test it and prove it wrong (or right) and we cant. There is simply no way to test it or prove it which is why its an eternal question. Its like trying to prove a simulation from within a simulation.
Hunting for some Truth/Absolute is contrary. This does not mean there is merely subjectivism and opinion. The possess the item we call knowledge due to common themes/pattern but this knowledge is not absolute. I believe it is best to think of knowledge as that which can be brought into question and/or investigated. That which cannot is not an item for our limited human scope. Also, limitation itself allows knowledge. You can take an everyday example of this with something like speech or walking. We do not walk or speak in a state of perpetual knowledge of how our legs function or how words are uttered as well as their particular meanings and possible contexts the action of speech and walking inhabit us and it is only when we focus in on them that they become attended to that they can become knowledge.
So when I think back to that Quora post (alleged one that allegedly proves it but Im not sure now), Im realizing either they were wrong or I was wrong (far more likely I was wrong) because the very nature of solipsism prevents you from being able to prove it one way or another, either right or wrong.
Though part of me wonders how language would affect omniscience.
"What do solipsists believe?
Based on a philosophy of subjective idealism, metaphysical solipsists maintain that the self is the only existing reality and that all other realities, including the external world and other persons, are representations of that self, and have no independent existence."
How are you using the term?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_solipsism
But lets grant it that, just because you know that for certain doesnt mean everything else is just a product of your mind, hallucination, etc. At MOST you can conclude its uncertain. Denial would imply knowledge you cannot access.
I was just arguing something similar here against this: https://www.quora.com/Is-epistemological-solipsism-a-contradiction-logic-solipsism-philosophy/answer/David-Dixon-434
In fact even as a form of skepticism it doesnt go far enough. True skepticism would be doubting all concepts of a self, consciousness, mind, etc, see how far that gets you.
And lets be honest, even if someone was one they dont behave as though its true. Theyll still avoid traffic, still wont murder, etc. Theyll still behave as though its all real so then youd have to ask what was the point of asking to begin with.
That's not a good objection. If this is all a dream, I would still rather skip the dreamed experience of getting run over by a dream car.
Can one be arrogant enough to believe he is the sole source and author of all great music, all architectural marvels and technological achievements, the author of all our epistemology and the content found in all youtube videos.
And if he does believe that...why getting in the trouble to debate it with him self in a public forum?
See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly
I'm crying.[/quote]
Solipsism is merely a myopic failure of empathy. I am @Darkneos failing to be me. The third person is me beyond the horizon of self. As him I run from the gun, even as I come here demanding to be shot down. It's a game that I play with myself until I am bored. There is another game called 'love', that i can play when the crying and the running stop.
It only looks arrogant from the isolation of the self. But when I was Einstein, I was not arrogant, but humble.
I see. Although I did not read the whole thing (admittedly), I would like to note that that is not a mathematical proof: it is formal logic; and no one can prove solipsism (nor anything in actually as a matter of fact) from pure, formal logic alone (albeit they may not be claiming that, as I didn't fully read it yet). Logic is about the form of an argument, and says nothing pertaining to the content. The whole article is too long for me to read right now, but eventually I will get around to it.
A philosophical zombie still has 'feelings' and 'cares' in the sense that you can see with your own eyes: they can express gestures of gratitude, they avoid pain, sit down and listen to your problems, they can still love you, etc.;
I think if you really reflect about what you can know (directly from experience), you will find that the warmth or frigidity of other people is a reflection of your pyschological state of mind. For example, imagine you sincerely believed that solipsism was false, wouldn't that bring some wanted warmth into experience for you? even though nothing changed about reality other than your state of mind, you would now experience a warmer kind of coexistence with other people. Now, imagine you believed it is true (or maybe that it is even indeterminate), then you lose that warmth--see how this is not a reflection of the truthity of the actual position of solipsism? It is a depiction of your state of mind. If you dive into yourself, then you can fix the issue without getting an answer to solipsism.
Bob
But since you act and behave as though it will hurt and get out of the way anyway (like in real life) your dream argument is moot. Like I said, the solipsist still models and behaves as though everything is real and exists so theyre just being argumentative for its own sake.
Never mind your definition of solipsism being you are the author and shaper is wrong.
This is a false argument against it, it has nothing to do with being arrogant.
A philosophical zombie by definition has no feelings and doesnt care so it wouldnt matter what gestures, words, etc they do because you know its not true. Its like a robot doing it for you so your argument is wrong.
I know how I feel doesnt affect the truth of solipsism, but thats beside the point. The fact you think there is no difference means that you really dont get it. Ive looked into myself but there isnt fixing it. If solipsism ended up being true then it wouldnt matter what other people did, it would be cold because you know their gestures and words mean nothing. Theyre not from someone, they dont have any feelings.
Like youre kidding yourself if you think your argument holds weight. Of course there is a world of difference when youre interacting with a human who has feelings and emotions (if anything that argument is why animals have rights now because people thought they were just mindless beasts before). Even just looking at history you can see how people treat those they view as less than or even demoting them below human status. Black people had it happen not long ago.
So no, and I encourage you to rethink your points again.
I'm only attacking myself, so there's no need to complain. And even then, it's descriptive a solipsist has no one with whom to empathise; it's not a fault. And not an argument either if it comes to it.
Solipsists don't have conversations, they talk to themselves, as I am doing.
The burden of proof demands evidence from the side making the claim, so I will insist on demanding a demonstration. The ridiculous nature of the claim is enough I guess.
Not all ideas are serious, philosophical or useful...just because some people attempt to force them in Philosophy.
This might be a naive question, but from a solipsistic standpoint, how do you account for the 'number of parallel events' that occur every second in the universe? If YOU cause all of them, then your parallel processing speed per second, must be far greater than light speed. Have you ever considered such 'scientific' issue's when you muse on the truth of solipsism?
All the calculations done by every computer, is actually done by YOU?
How likely does that seem to you?
Hello Darkneos,
I think we are misunderstanding each other, so let me try to explain in more depth (and let me know where you disagree).
When I was saying that a philosophical zombie has feelings and cares, I was not contending that they have them in the sense that is in dispute for the term philosophical zombieas you rightly point out that, by definition, a PZ has no feelings. However, what is meant by having no feelings in that sense? My point was that the missing feelings in a philosophical zombie has, in actuality, no bearing on the feelings which the average person, being a genuine person or a philosophical zombie, has: they still cry, they can hug you, they can demonstrate concern for you, etc. even in the case that they are a philosophical zombie.
The problem is that the feelings that are removed, by definition, from a philosophical zombie, I would argue, is a kind of ultra feelings which are described as actual feelings. A PZ can still cry, but it isnt real because theres an extra component of being human which goes being the mere act of crying (allegedly); A PZ can show obvious signs of concern for your well being, but it isnt real because there is something extra required, something beyond demonstrating obvious concern for another, which is required to be a true feeling. This is my point: this ultra-feelings is just another part of humanitys mythology. Theres no need for anything extra nor is there any evidence of it, and a being doesnt have to go metaphysically beyond a complex bit of machinery to have feelings (in a non-ultra sense).
Although I dont think humans are robots necessarily, if you wanted to call a PZ a highly sophisticated bit of machinery, then I would still argue, in that case, that it still has feelings. The only reason we dont do that with AI now, is because it isnt a highly sophisticated bit of machinery like a human being: thats the only meaningful difference for all intents and purposes.
I think you may have misunderstood me: I am arguing exactly that this is false. The reason historically people and animals were abused is based off of this false assumption: no, if a being is demonstrating obvious signs of being able to feel, being concerned, desiring, etc., then no matter if it is a lower life form or a robot, it thereby has feelings because that is the true standard of what it means to feel. Solipsism is providing something superfluous to the conversation: there has to be some impossible to attain component of existence that qualifies one as a true feeling being. I am just trying to convey to you that (I think) it is a false dilemma--as regardless of whether a person is a PZ, where they cannot feel in this ultra sense, they are still demonstrating the capacity to love, feel, and desire just the same as yourself (in a non-ultra sense): there just another component to your existence that you cant verify for another person (i.e., that they are aware and feel in the same manner as you), and (I would argue) it isnt actually relevant to solipsism (although I grant contemporary literature will disagree): I know there are other subjects, because by subject I mean a willnot the whole package deal of consciousness.
Hopefully that clarifies a bit.
Bob
This point is still not true as when you realize they are a P Zombie then those things stop. It would have a bearing, especially since people can tell whether you mean something or not.
Quoting Bob Ross
But there is a need for that extra because again people can tell. There is usually evidence for it but its not something you can test in a lab. It has to go beyond machinery to have feelings. What youre saying is simply false.
Quoting Bob Ross
And youd be wrong. The reason people mistreated those before is they took their actions to be that of a machine, in other words they didnt really feel anything or mean it.
Quoting Bob Ross
Except no they are not because they are a P Zombie. Again your entire argument is nullified by the definition of a p zombie.
Don't you mean 'you?' and if events are happening that you are unaware of then again, is that not evidence against solipsism?
Hello Darkneos,
I think we may need to dive into what a PZ actually is in terms of its definition. To keep it simple for now, I am going to just use the basic, standard definition from Wiki:
I would like to note a few things pertaining to the definition. Firstly, the sole aspect of a PZ is that it doesnt have qualia which, in turn, is subjective, conscious feelings: it is not that a being cannot feel in the sense of being capable of crying, being concerned, etc.; The whole purpose of the PZ though experiment is to say that a person who is demonstrating signs of depression, suicidality, is crying, is screaming in pain, etc. may not be feeling it in the sense that they are not consciously aware of it happening. The PZ still cries: those things do not stop because they are a PZ.
Secondly, the term qualia is a very specific term which does not translate to feelings in the sense that I was deploying them before: it is a subjective, personally sensation which occurs simultaneously with the physical events themselves, but not within space itself. This is what I meant by ultra-feelings: it isnt enough that a person is going through pain in the sense that it demonstrablethey must also have qualia, a conscious sensation, along-with the pain. To clarify, it is not that pain is eliminated if one is a PZ but, rather, the conscious sensation allegedly corresponding with it. This is very important.
There are many ways to dissect the idea of qualia and illegitimize it, but, to stick with my original claims, I will put a pin in that for now.
My point is that whether a person I am experiencing has qualia or not, they still demonstrate emotions: they still cry, they still hold intervention meetings for addicted love ones, they still perform acts of love, etc.; these do not go away if they are a PZ. What goes away is a corresponding , along-with sensation. This along-with sensation is superfluous to me as it is not required to infer a person is feeling (in the sense that emotions are demonstrated: e.g., crying, genuine crying, ingenuine crying, etc.).
Regardless of whether they are a PZ, my spouse still demonstrates every possible indicator of loving me ferventlythere is no need to add in an extra property required to meet the definition of feeling to me. Yes, I am saying that one doesnt need qualia to feel: maybe that is what you fundamentally disagree with?
When you determine a person is genuinely upset vs. they are not, you do so by indicators which will never provide information about if they have qualia. They are either demonstrating genuine concern or they arent regardless of whether they are a PZ or not. Again, I am claiming one can be concerned without having qualia.
Think of it this way: imagine a chronically depressed person. They are crying, in visible torment, lethargic, etc.: the solipsist can still rightly point out that they could not have qualia. But this is independent of whether they are sincerely crying, sincerely in torment, etc.: whether there is a corresponding, special, and along-with sensation to the crying and torment is irrelevant.
When you say machine, I think you are conflating it with a sophisticated machine, like a human (in this PZ thought experiment).
Hopefully I explained adequately why this is false. Please let me know if I did not.
Bob
Thats not what it means. Its to argue against an alleged inner life that might be occurring in the person. They dont have qualia, hence the wording of considered as having it but not really.Quoting Bob Ross
Again you misunderstand the PZ. It acts and has all the normal actions of pain but doesnt really feel pain. Pain is eliminated as a PZ or rather it never truly was. Youre butchering the thought experiment to fit your narrative.
Quoting Bob Ross
There actually is a need to add that extra property. Its what makes the difference. The fact you cant see that is..telling. Quoting Bob Ross
And again youd still be wrong. One needs qualia to be concerned. I can ACT like it but it matters whether I feel it or not. Again people can tell. Quoting Bob Ross
Again no. If they dont have qualia or feelings then they arent sincerely anything. You keep making up stuff like ultra feelings when the feeling behind an action makes all the difference. Its just basic.
Again youre not getting it. Did you even finish the math link?
The external world is an extremely difficult topic. Assuming more people exist other than I - which is a mere assumption, for I can do no better - we don't know what 95% of the universe is made. 27% or so, is called dark matter - which is a misleading name, it might not even be matter - the rest is dark energy, also a misleading name.
So we only partly understand 5% of the universe. But we must postulate 95% of it with stuff we know virtually nothing about, except that if it is not postulated, the 5% we do know doesn't make sense.
Now, if you take it that physics to be, outside our immediate perceptions, the most reliable knowledge we have, then it shouldn't be terribly surpassing if we cannot make much sense of the external world, because the topic is much more difficult than physics.
So, we postulate what we need, in order to make sense of the world. If that includes other people, so be it. We cannot attain certainty in empirical affairs.
Hello Darkneos,
If by inner life you mean qualia, then you are correctbut what are you contending with in my argument? That is what I said too. As far as I am understanding, you are just repeating the definition I already gave: nothing about what you quoted from me claimed that a PZ still has qualia .
I suspect that by really feel pain you mean has qualia, which, in that case, I agree and simply ask: what is the contention?
Again, by never truly was, I am presuming you are still operating under the assumption that in order for one to feel they must have qualia: I am denying this. A feeling can occur without being consciously aware of it. For example, imagine that you were stabbed right now: you would feel it in the sense that your body would react to it and you would be conscious of that pain (assuming, from introspection, you know you are conscious). Now, imagine the same scenario except your conscious experience of that pain is not present (i.e., you are conscious of everything except the painso you can see them stab you, etc.): your body is still screaming out in agony (you just arent aware of it). Now, to clarify, this is a different scenario than one in which you are numb to the pain (where the pain isnt occurring because, for example, you get morphine). The PZ thought experiment is predicated on the idea that your nerve endings are not malfunctioning, numbed by a drug, etc.: you are still screaming, still in agony, but you arent consciously aware of the pain. I think you are committed to saying there is no pain, or finding some kind of logical (or maybe metaphysical) impossibility in this above scenario. But if you say it is impossible, then youve also annihilated solipsism, because if it is impossible for you to scream out in agony without being aware of the pain (i.e., having the qualia corresponding thereto), then a normal person who is screaming in agony must have qualia (by your own logic). Now, I am not saying that that would be correct, but I am simply pointing out that my analogy holds (in the converse direction) on the same assumption of the PZ thought experiment.
If you accept that analogy, then you can see (hopefully if I have explained adequately enough) that, in that scenario, you have a scenario where you have no qualia but your body is still 'feeling' pain. The machine, if you will, is feeling pain indeed.
I think you may be misunderstanding I am saying, or maybe I am not explaining it adequately enough. I am not re-shaping the PZ thought experiment: I am agreeing with it. I cannot know that you have qualia, which is the whole point of the thought experiment. I am contending with an unnecessarily metaphysical commitment that sneaks its way into the definition of feeling that solipsists tend to deploy: that to feel, one needs qualia (i.e., one needs an extra, along-side sensation with the pain the body is having).
Perhaps I may have confused you into thinking that by pain I mean an uncomfortable sensation within ones subjective experience--because I would agree, in that sense, that a PZ doesnt have pain; but I am not arguing that. I am saying that pain ought to be something less than having a subjective experience of it (in the sense of qualia). Maybe to you this seems like cheating. To define feelings in the sense of qualia is to meddle in transcendent affairs that are completely unnecessary (in my opinion).
Perhaps you should explain how that extra property makes a difference instead of throwing insults.
Let me elaborate on my love analogy.
I can tell if a person is genuinely concerned with my well-being based off of their behavior, which expounds their intentions. Yes, I cannot tell that they have qualia, but I can tell, for the most part, if they are narcassistic or notnothing about this, by my lights (but correct me where I am wrong), requires qualia.
My spouse does nice things for me, sticks by my side through any times (good or bad), and constantly expresses behaviorally a love for me: that is all I require to define a person as loving me. Now, clearly you do not agree: for you, there must be qualia, a conscious experience which is aware of that expressed love, for the person to truly love you. My question is: why?
I am not entirely following: are you claiming that you cant tell if someone is genuinely concerned about your well being because they dont have qualia? Again, to me, if they are constantly demonstrating acts of love, then they love you: theres no need for them to be conscious, to have corresponding conscious experiences of the events they actualize, to love me.
Yes, I do think that most people think that qualia is feelings, but I disagree. What do you disagree with in terms of that assessment?
The whole contention I am raising is that qualia is disynonymous with feelings: which one, in my terms, are you contending with here? I understand that you use them synonymously, but to do that in contending with my view is to not contend with it at all.
No, I have not read the math link. If you would like to invoke that into our conversation, then please feel free.
I think you are getting stuck on the basic expositions of the PZ thought experiment: yes, it can be presented, in its most basic form, as essentially qualia is feelings. I am making the argument that kind of basic form of the argument is wrong, but that isnt the only argument (even in terms of basics) and certainly is not entailed by the basic definition I gave you.
Bob
Do you agree that it is illogical for a solipsist to reference the word 'they?'
On Star Trek TNG's holodeck, the virtual reality is only rendered, as you navigate the holodeck, but the system (the Enterprise computer) that produces the holodeck, exists, independent of the subject experiencing the holodeck program, so, even in that scenario, there is more than 1 existent.
From a solipsistic standpoint, that's quite funny!
Also we can make a ton of sense of the external world, thats how we have modern society.
It's pretty obvious what it is.
Quoting Bob Ross
Again, no that is not what the PZ thought experiment is based on. A feeling cannot occur without being consciously aware of it. Your second example would simply not take place. The point is that a P-Zombie acts in all the ways a human would but it doesn't really feel anything. You have woefully misunderstood the thought experiment not to mention your example is just wrong.
Quoting Bob Ross
No you don't, you assume that. All that you said requires qualia. People can act a certain way but not really feel that way about you. They can perform the action but without the emotion it's not really care and concern. People lie all the time, lead people on, so you're just wrong here. It's not just the action they have to actually feel and have love for you, which a P-Zombie cannot, ever.
Quoting Bob Ross
Acts of love aren't proof of love, they have to have the feeling for it to be so. Again the fact you can't understand why the emotion behind it makes all the difference is telling. They have to be conscious otherwise it doesn't matter. Pretty much everyone knows this.
Quoting Bob Ross
It is entailed in the basic definition you gave me. You can make the argument that the form of the argument is wrong but that doesn't matter, you're simply wrong in your assessment.
Your whole chain shows you don't get it.
Of course you do. There can be only one!
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Extreme_space/What_is_the_Universe_made_of#:~:text=The%20Universe%20is%20thought%20to,visible%20object%20in%20the%20Universe.
Quoting Darkneos
Yes, because more often that not, our perceptions and conceptions are similar enough that we understand each other more or less.
But we don't understand the external world enough to refute solipsism or skepticism, or idealism and many other ideas. If we did have a better understanding of it, these problems need not arise.
Hello Darkneos,
To be honest, I dont think this conversation is very productive. You arent actually contending with my claims at all; but I am going to try one more time to respond adequately, and then if you still feel the exact same way, then we should problem just agree to disagree.
I gave a fairly long, substantive response and I asked what you are contending with in my view (as you were simply disagreeing with me yet it sounded like, to me, you were actually agreeing with me without realizing it). Responding with it is obvious does not help further the conversation.
My point in asking was not to send a condescending, rhetorical question: I genuinely dont think you are seeing what I am saying and wanted clarification on what you are contending with. Your use of feelings = qualia is fine for you own view, but it doesnt work to address my contentions. Let me ask you: why do you think feelings are synonymous with qualia?
The PZ experiment does not claim that a feeling equates to qualia. Now, I will grant (as I already have many times) that many basic arguments for the PZ experiment are predicated on that assumption: but that is what I am questioning and arguing against. Telling me that the PZ thought experiment is not based on feelings being disynonmous with qualia just tells me that you are subscribing to that kind of argument: now tell me why feelings cannot be disynonymous with qualia (in the manner I already outlined it).
I am claiming that a feeling can occur without being consciously aware of it in the sense of qualia: you disagree. Now, tell me why.
This is just semantics: you arent contending with what I am saying. By feel in your sentence, you are assuming it is synonymous with qualia. Let me put it this way. I agree with this sentence:
The point is that a P-Zombie acts in all the ways a human would but it doesn't really have qualia.
I disagree with:
The point is that a P-Zombie acts in all the ways a human would but it doesn't really feel anything.
How is my example wrong? A person can still be screaming in agony if they do not have qualia: surely you agree with that. I think you are getting caught up in the semantics. The screaming out in agony, to me, classifies it under the term feeling; for you, it does not. Why?
This is just blatantly false: a person doing a nice thing for me does not require qualia. The whole point of the PZ experiment is that a person could do a nice gesture for you and yet still not have qualia. If qualia were required for such actions, then there would be no point to the thought experiment: everyone would know that everyone else has qualia because they do those things. On the contrary, thats not the point of the thought experiment at all: it isnt enough that she drove all the way across town to get me something as a token of loveshe must be consciously aware of it as well to feel.
Yes it can: I could be completely numbed up on morphine and still care about you.
I never said that a person lying is truly concerned: obviously that would be false. I said that I can determine if a person is genuinly concerned based off of their actions and, yes, some clever psychopaths can pass my tests.
But do you think that they need to have a conscious experience to love you? You keep using the term feeling, but that is just leading us to confusion. If conscious experience is what you mean by feel in that sentence, then I think you are wrong because I dont think one needs to have a subjective experience to love you; if you mean that they can love you without them being sincerely psychologically in love with you, then I agree. Do you see the distinction I am trying to draw (even if you still disagree)?
I disagree. To clarify, I dont think that I can prove that someone loves me with certainty; but I can pragmatically tell (and I would argue most people can too); and, again, when you say feeling, are you referring to consciously aware of or it is psychologically true that?
I am still, and have always been, claiming that emotions matter (in sense of emotions being feelings): but that term doesnt translate to qualia to me. You just keep trying to mesh the two terms together, because you use them synonymously, instead of trying to understand my distinction.
I can assure you that everyone does not know this: you are presuming that peoples actions only matter if they are consciously aware of them in the sense of a subjective, private, along-with sensation.
No where did the definition use the term feelings: it used qualia.
If you still think that there is no substance to what I am saying, then it may be for the best that we just agree to disagree.
Bob
We actually do though, but that is not why you can't refute those ideas. Rather those are ideas science cannot test, as metaphysical claims we just cannot. Solipsism cannot be tested or proven because it says only your existence is certain and everything else is either doubtful or non existent. So it can't use any metric to support it's argument.
Because they are just not. The whole issue with your argument is a based on a misunderstanding of the PZ thought experiment. So either deal with the experiment as it is or don't comment on it.
The point of the thought experiment is to elicit what could be the difference between such a being and a normal feeling human. It literally went right over your head.
In either case your point does nothing against solipsism.
How? What you are arguing doesn't at all go against what I'm saying. You say that because these views are metaphysical (which isn't clear that they are, some are epistemic, as solipsism is about our knowledge of the world, not the world itself -as would be claim made by materialists or idealists) hence science cannot test them.
I agree science cannot not test them. If we knew more, if we had a more sophisticated and elaborate understanding, I don't see why we couldn't know enough to say for certain "solipsism or skepticism is false." We can't say they are a-priori necessarily metaphysical views.
For an advanced civilization, they may be trivial questions.
Nevertheless for us, the issues will remain problematical, so it's not as if I'm trying to refute these ideas, we can only go by probability and likelihood here, in my opinion.
There are three things that would cause genuine solipsism. Interacting regularly with a supernatural being that knows what you're thinking, about to do, or have done. Being isolated from birth (living life without having met another person). And if the only relationship you have with another is from correspondence not in person (slowly, willingly choosing to lose all contact with others and solely communicating strictly by mail or internet for example).
Look at it this way. You weren't born being a solipsist. Someone had to introduce you to the idea and notion so, you can be rest assured if the rest of us don't exist at least that one other person who first introduced the idea to you must be real. Otherwise, you couldn't have been real in the first place. Therefore, we all must be real and solipsism a lie. Damn. Sometimes I impress myself. I should be getting paid for this.
They are metaphysical though, that much is clear. Solipsism isn't about our knowledge of the world. Science cannot test it because it's a metaphysical claim. Also because solipsism at best doubts everything but the existence of yourself so of course you can't use science to prove it.
Quoting Manuel
Yes we can because that is what they are. No amount of knowledge will change that it is unprovable. In short the only way to prove solipsism true or false is pure omniscience.
Quoting Manuel
Judging from what others have told me it's not problematic or an issue. Solipsism, even if somehow it were true would change nothing about reality.
.
Solipsist could just argue it was their mind making them aware of it. Whether you're born with it or not is irrelevant.
Eh... okay. Seems to philosophically be along the lines of "indicting a ham sandwich" but okay.
I suppose questions along the lines of "who gave birth to you" and "where does new knowledge come from" are of the same.
It doesn't add up. You literally cannot end up in an eternal loop of "your true self" revealing more and more information. Eventually you would reach the point of omnipotence, which means as a god, all things are your creation and deserve to be treated as real as you are. You're a nice god, aren't you? I have feelings, desires. hopes, dreams. Leave me be! Preserve yourself so I do not perish and rest assured, the lives of billions with observable intelligence and a will (real to you or not) to live depend on you abandoning your solipsism! Or at the very least considering we might be real. See now it's not all about you.
In my opinion solipsism just seems like something a brilliant military psychologist came up with and introduced into a populous deemed too intelligent but. I suppose you already knew that :smile:
Its like last Thursdayism, you cant prove it wrong or true.
Your point about being a god also isnt what solipsism says, thats a strawman.
If you're not creator of all things and have the power to destroy all that exists (if you are destroyed) then, no, logic 101 dictates everything "the entire universe" does in fact not exist solely in your head.
So. Preeetty sure it does... Also what is a straw man argument anyway to a solipsist. Just something you made up for fun. You'll come up with something better.
Logic would not in fact dictate that. Just because something exists in your head doesn't mean you have control over it.
Like I said, strawman.
So who does? Who created it? Somebody else?
See now I kinda think you're just kinda trying to have fun with us right now.
So you made an irrelevant statement that I just so happened to have painted into a corner.
Cool. Carry on, wayward son. Meanwhile real people are actually struggling with real issues.
Nothing you have put forward has been an argument that isn't a strawman. The point of solipsism is what you know, and in this case all you know is you exist for sure. Different ones draw different conclusions. But NONE of them say you made all this.
Also "real issues"? As if the fundamental nature of what we take to be real isn't an issue. Nothing else matter but that question as it informs the rest.
There was a post that I read that allegedly proved it true, but I dont know since I cant remember and all I have is a powerful emotion about it. Ive tried finding it but it cant since I remember nothing about it.
My guess is that we can only know what something IS by what it is not. Like I can only know what is real but what is not real. But according to solipsism if everything is not real then you could never know because youd have nothing you could compare it to. Even if you said you proved it there is no way to verify your claims. In order for solipsism to be proven true there would have to be not solipsism to compare it with, otherwise it would just be belief. But the very existence of not solipsism would prove it wrong.
So in order words solipsism would have to be wrong in order to be proven true or false. Hows that?