• antinatalautist
    32
    When you identify your existence as being 'the entirety of your present experience', it causes solipsism because when you, 'by analogy', conceive of others, they must too have their own little 'experience orbs/worlds', which may (or may not- according to solipsists), exist 'out there' beyond the bounds of your experience 'somewhere' ('beyond your experience' is not a place) unknowable.

    The humans that you then interact in your everyday life, basically become non-player characters, sims people. That may or may not, represent within your experience, the actions of a person acting within their own private 'experience-orb/world'. With some unknown causal correlation occurring between the two 'experience orbs' (the sum of one's present, private experience). Or with nothing at all beyond your world, according to the solipsist.

    So what's the solution to this isolation? It is to conceive or identify oneself in a different manner. Your theory of what you are, is almost automatically a theory of others. I cannot help but, 'by analogy', extrapolate the way in which I exist to be roughly the same as the way in which others exist, it is my natural inclination. As in, I don't interact with someone and conceive of their experience is being this amalgamation of 47 different senses I've never experienced. And I don't naturally conceive of others as p-zombies. Why? Because I identifying oneself as one's body, within a public external world.

    So we see other people as 'others', because we identify ourselves as being our body, and we identify our visual experience as being a direct realist type 'window upon an already there world'.

    But could it not then just be the case that my experience-orb really is just 'ontologically private', it really is completely cut off from everything, or nothing lays beyond, and I've just mentally structured my own experience in such a way as to generate an experience of others. So I have these perceptions and experience, and I mentally identify myself with a particular part of it, or you could say I structure my experience so it is in a particular mode (of say, being this body, within this external public space), which, due to my natural inclination to by analogy mentally place other 'windows upon the world' into the eyes of humans around me, causes my visual field - the world around me - to be experienced as public?

    So what came first, your perceptions and the way you structure them mentally (is the space around me public? is it private?), or the public space inhabited by others? Which caused which?
  • Michael Ossipoff
    1.7k


    It seems to me that what basically is, for us, is individual experience. Out life-experience story. ...a possibility-story (as described and defined in my other posts at these forums). Describing the world from the point of view of your experience seems the ultimate Empiricism. What you know about the physical world, all comes via experience.

    Of course, your life-experience possibility-story has to have a setting, in a possibility-world. And that world must include other members of your species.

    But, though your experience is basic and primary, as what there is, for you, it seems to me that a fully Anti-Realist position has a problem with what "abstract" means, in "abstract facts". It seems legitimate for philosophy to pursue objective, general, abstract description.

    So, though I feel that Experience and Experiencer are locally primary, in some way, that can't rule-out the valid hypothetical independent existence of the whole wider world of abstract facts.

    In the infinity of abstract facts, and inter-referring systems of them, of course it's inevitable that there will be life-experience possibility-stories, and therefore experiencers. We're natural and inevitable.

    Understandably, we and our experience are what there is for us, and we naturally perceive metaphysical reality as such., from that point of view, our own point of view.

    Michael Ossipoff
  • Cavacava
    2.4k

    But could it not then just be the case that my experience-orb really is just 'ontologically private', it really is completely cut off from everything, or nothing lays beyond, and I've just mentally structured my own experience in such a way as to generate an experience of others. So I have these perceptions and experience, and I mentally identify myself with a particular part of it, or you could say I structure my experience so it is in a particular mode (of say, being this body, within this external public space), which, due to my natural inclination to by analogy mentally place other 'windows upon the world' into the eyes of humans around me, causes my visual field - the world around me - to be experienced as public?

    Sloping towards idealism isn't it?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.