I am sorry you are having difficulty grasping the issue.
Maybe this article about self referencing will help you understand.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-reference/

What I am saying logically has to do with self reference and infinite regress.

If all you have is self reference then you wind up with an ill define infinite regress which never reaches any conclusion.
So you can't conclude logically that the only thing that exists is the self if all you have is self reference because that self reference will regress infinitely.

If solipsism was actually true then in reality there would be no way to reference anything without an ill defined infinite regress (because everything would be self referencing).

However the fact that we can reference things like self and not self without infinite regress means that we can prove with logical certainty that solipsism is not true.

There is no metaphysical issue, solipsism can't be metaphysically true, because if it was we would be stuck in an infinite regress of self reference.

Not all self-reference invokes an infinite regress. That's only the case when either the self-reference (and each self-reference) must exactly mirrror the starting point, or when we're looking for something like a support of a claim (or state, etc.) and the support is self-referential, which then would need another self-referential support, and so on. But a lot of self-reference doesn't meet either of those conditions.

For example, take this picture:



(I'm not sure why the image isn't being embedded)

That has an infinite regress. However, if we we to change it so that the first "inside"/nested picture features the person holding a different photo or painting rather than yet another mirrored image, it wouldn't be a infinite regress, yet it would still be self-referential.

Under solipsism, there's no infinite regress automatically invoked simply because all experience is experience of self. An infinite regress would only arise if one felt a need to support self by appeal to something other than self (putatively), but where, under a supposition of solipsism, one of course isn't able to appeal to anything other than self, so that step would just keep repeating ad infinitum.

While I think there are other problems with solipsism, including that I can't see how it doesn't amount to first assuming a realist view and then arriving at solipsism as a skeptical reaction to the realist view, where the realist view is still subsumed in solipsism's framework, I don't think that a necessary infinite regress is one of its problems.

If solipsism was true then the only thing that existed would be you.
And the only thing you could reference would be yourself.
It would necessarily involve a problem of infinite regress from self reference.

So you reference yourself when you say something like, "Ah, look at that tree."

Where's the infinite regress in that?

The definition of recursion.

A recursive process is one in which objects are defined in terms of other objects of the same type. Using some sort of recurrence relation, the entire class of objects can then be built up from a few initial values and a small number of rules. The Fibonacci numbers are most commonly defined recursively. Care, however, must be taken to avoid self-recursion, in which an object is defined in terms of itself, leading to an infinite nesting.

The definition self recursion

Self-recursion is a recursion that is defined in terms of itself, resulting in an ill-defined infinite regress.

.

Perhaps you believe that if the only thing that exists is self (solipsism) you can avoid self recursion when defining objects.
I don't see how, and that notion makes no sense to me, but you are entitled to your opinion.
I am sorry you don't understand, it is pretty simple.

If solipsism was true only one object would exist, and it would only be able to reference itself when defining anything.
That would be self recursion and leads to infinite regress.

If other objects exist (something other than just self), even objects of the same type, you can use recursion to avoid infinite regress.

Okay, but first, that would just be about defining something, it wouldn't be about all reference (since, "Hey, there's a tree," for example, is a reference to a tree, but not a definition of a tree).

But even for definitions, I don't see why this would be any more problem for a solipsist than it would be for anyone if we were to "translate" terms into some general property. In other words, a solipsist defining a tree would presumably just as well present something like the following, just as anyone else would:

"a woody perennial plant, typically having a single stem or trunk growing to a considerable height and bearing lateral branches at some distance from the ground."

It's true that for the (ontological) solipsist, all of those things, ontologically, are really self, and that would be the case for anything they could possibly define.

But likewise, it's true for a physicalist (such as myself), that all of those things, ontologically, are really physical (that is, really matter in dynamic structures/relations), and that would be the case, on my view as a physicalist, for anything I could possibly define.

And likewise, it would be true for anyone, that all of those things, at least on one ontological level, are words in a natural language, and that would be the case for anything we could possibly define.

There are other categories we could appeal to there, too, such as "at least concepts if not existents" and so on.

So if those ontological categories are not problems for the rest of us, even though everything we could define would fit the category, then I don't see why that should be a problem for solipsists either.

Well, like I said you are entitled to your opinion.

But the fact is if the only thing that exists is self, then the only thing that can be referenced is self.

That is self recursion and it leads to an ill defined infinite regress in which you never define anything.
Including self or anything else.

If you can define things, including self, then this necessarily means solipsism is not a reality.

To me you seem to be confusing recursion with self recursion.

You say a solipsist can reference a tree then redefine that tree as being a part of self.
So the tree would in essence be an object like self, but the critical difference would be it would actually exist independent of the self.

If solipsism were actually true and a reality that would not be possible.
There would be no other objects, there would just be one object referencing itself, which leads to infinite regress.

I pointed out the definitions of recursion and self recursion.

If solipsism was true it would not be possible in reality to avoid self recursion when referencing.

I guess I only have two quick points to make:

You're equivocating between two different definitions of "self". The first is the conscious experience we're having right now; the traditional "self"(1). This is the context in which someone says "look at that orange tree". The second definition, which comes from solipsism, is "the source of everything that exists"(2.1) or "the only real mind"(2.2). So when a solipsist encounters a tree they could think/say: "look at that tree which does not exist in any reality external to some conscious or unconscious part of my mind" .

My second point is that solipsism is and always has been presented as a possible explanation for phenomenon, not a rejection of the existence of phenomenon. Saying that if solipsism were true there would be no trees blatantly misrepresents the inherent thrust of solipsism. The single object universe you describe as "self-referential" isn't solipsism because it says nothing about the nature of the phenomenon we perceive as solipsism does; it depends on their non-existence to be an apt objection.

As far as applying the epistemically/ontologically recursive objection to actual solipsism goes: once we invent some sort of original cause to anything we're always left holding the same empirically empty bag: What caused the original cause? Humans are unfortunately limited to this sort of causative temporal thinking. If my mind creates everything what created my mind? What created the big bang or sustains the universe?

My mind all the way back is no more problematic than turtles all the way down...

You're equivocating between two different definitions of "self". The first is the conscious experience we're having right now; the traditional "self"(1). This is the context in which someone says "look at that orange tree". The second definition, which comes from solipsism, is "the source of everything that exists"(2.1) or "the only real mind"(2.2). So when a solipsist encounters a tree they could think/say: "look at that tree which does not exist in any reality external to some conscious or unconscious part of my mind" . — VagabondSpectre

No.
I am saying that if solipsism was true then the only thing it would be possible to reference would be the self which is self recursive and leads to an ill defined infinite regress.
I don't care what definition of self you use, if there exists only one object and that object includes a reference to something, it will be a referencing only of itself.
That simply cannot be avoided.

My second point is that solipsism is and always has been presented as a possible explanation for phenomenon, not a rejection of the existence of phenomenon. Saying that if solipsism were true there would be no trees blatantly misrepresents the inherent thrust of solipsism. The single object universe you describe as "self-referential" isn't solipsism because it says nothing about the nature of the phenomenon we perceive as solipsism does; it depends on their non-existence to be an apt objection. — VagabondSpectre

I pointed out why that is simply not true.
If solipsism were a reality we would be certain of nothing, not the self or anything else.
If solipsism were true it would be incapable of explaining anything.
Also you want to cling to an inconsistency in your position where by you imply that we can only be certain of self.
If we can be certain of the existence of self, conscious experience, subjective perception, or what ever you decide to call it, then we can be sure there exists something independent from that.
If there exists nothing independent of what ever you decide to call it, then we could not be certain of anything and any attempt to define or reference anything would lead to infinite regress, meaning there are an infinite amount of steps that must be taken to arrive at a conclusion.

Because we reach conclusions all the time within a finite amount of steps and without any issue this means we can be logically certain that solipsism is not really what is going on ontologically or epistemologically.

That just leaves semantics.
You want to argue semantics go for it.
Perhaps solipsism does not literally mean that all we can access is self generated subjective information.

My mind all the way back is no more problematic than turtles all the way down... — VagabondSpectre

lol

So saying turtles all the way down never gets you to the bottom, just like saying only the self exists would never allow you to reach a conclusion about the existence of self or anything else.

It is only a problem if you take the assertion of solipsism seriously from in logically formal way.
It very obviously is not true that it is my mind all the way back because if that were true I would be stuck in an infinite loop.
I am not, so I can conclude solipsism is not true.

I am saying that if solipsism was true then the only thing it would be possible to reference would be the self which is self recursive and leads to an ill defined infinite regress.

I don't care what definition of self you use, if there exists only one object and that object includes a reference to something, it will be a referencing only of itself.
That simply cannot be avoided. — m-theory

It doesn't have to be avoided because this is not a description of solipsism, it's description of something else entirely. Under solipsism "self" is more than just a single object; "self" is everything that exists, including one's personal "self"(1), but it is still distinct (being a part of, and not the whole. See: compositional fallacy) from the expanded solipsistic definition of "self"(2)

Because we reach conclusions all the time within a finite amount of steps and without any issue this means we can be logically certain that solipsism is not really what is going on ontologically or epistemologically. — m-theory

What kind of conclusions do you reach that allows you to be logically certain solipsism is not true?

"Tree's exist"?

What about the ontological/epistemic gap that exists when confronted with the dogma of uncertainty?

Can you give me some examples of the infinitely regressive steps that we would begin taking in pursuit of a conclusion under solipsism?

So saying turtles all the way down never gets you to the bottom, just like saying only the self exists would never allow you to reach a conclusion about the existence of self or anything else. — m-theory

Turtles all the way down is an expression that has come to represent the inherent incompleteness in any of our cause and effect/ hierarchical descriptions (of any kind) of the universe. The moon orbits the Earth, the Earth orbits the sun, the sun orbits (another star) the gravitational center of the galaxy. What does the galaxy orbit? And so on. "Turtles all the way down" was allegedly one answer given to support the concept of a flat earth when confronted with the question "What holds it up?"; it point's out that a final "conclusion" of source or cause is unachievable because it must always be supported by additional claims, which in turn themselves must be supported. This kind of dogmatic regression exists in the currently accepted cosmological model and leads inexorably to an unanswered question or the supposition of an axiom. What created the universe? Ontological regression is not unique to solipsism.

"The tree is created by my mind. What created my mind" might be "ontologically regressive/recursive" but there is no actual infinite repeating loop and no "self reference". To say that a tree is generated by some aspect of my mind is not to say that the tree is in and of itself equal to my mind. Parts need not share characteristics with the whole, and vice-versa.

Solipsism is the notion that you only have access to your own existence.
If this true then my criticisms apply.

What you are describing is the notion that you can simply redefine objects (like trees for example) as being a part of self.
That redefining would not be possible if the only access to existence you had was your own existence.
If things do not exist independently of your own existence, the subjective experience, the mind, or what ever terms you want to use, then the ill defined infinite regress issue I pointed out will arise.

Claiming that solipsism avoids this issue by suggesting that there is access to independently existing objects is not a typical definition of the term solipsism and I am not arguing that point because I agree that, necessarily, we must have access to an existence that is independent for our own existence.
Of course that is not how solipsism is typically defined.

If you are claiming that all information we access is subjective, that we never access any information independent of that subjectivity, then you have not avoided the issue I raised.
Otherwise, if you are not claiming this, then I see no reason to debate because I agree that the above notion cannot be the case.

Also I am not talking about incompleteness I am talking about logical steps.
There would be infinitely many if solipsism was actually the case and we would never arrive at any conclusions, definitions, or any logical sense at all.
We would be stuck in an infinite loop.

If it is true that we can arrive at conclusions or definitions of things (including self) in a finite amount of steps, then this is mutually exclusive of solipsism.

The simplest way I can put it is like this.
Self is not logically equivalent to non-self.
If solipsism were true then the above would be false and it would not be possible to make conclusions or form definitions of self or non-self.
Because we know in reality that the self is not logically equivalent to non-self, we can draw conclusions and form definitions about either of these two distinct, and independent things.

For the life of me I don't understand why that is so difficult to grasp.

The self cannot be logically equivalent in reality to the non-self without infinite regress of self recursion.

The self cannot be logically equivalent in reality to the non-self without infinite regress of self recursion. — m-theory

You're equivocating between different definitions of the term "self".

Under metaphysical solipsism ("the world and other minds do not have objective "existence"."), everything that exists is presumed to be a part of one's own mind, but not equivalent to one's own mind (that's kinda the whole ontological point of solipsism). The "Mind" ("self"(2)) encompasses everything that exists, including "self"(1). Everything that exists, as a whole, is "the mind". The "self"(1) is a part of this whole, and the stimuli the self(1) experiences (like trees and animals) is also a part of the greater "mind" (the whole), but it (a tree) is neither equivalent to self(1) or self(2). It is a thing generated by self(2) and perceived by self(1) (under metaphysical solipsism).

When a hypothetical solipsist suggests that the world we perceive is actually generated by "the self" or is a part of "the self" they are not saying that the world they perceive or the things in it is equivalent to their consciousness, they're saying that their consciousness is the only thing with objective or continuous existence while the things they perceive are some form of non-continuous illusions brought on by some fundamental aspect of the way their conscious/subconscious minds work.

When people are dreaming they can perceive of things within their dream, like trees, but instead of the perception of the tree coming directly from some external reality, it comes from (is a part of) the mind itself. This is the kind of position that a metaphysical solipsist would take. In essence they would accuse you of being an illusion, and thus far your retort would be "But you perceive me/can draw conclusions about me, and if I was an illusion you would not be able to do either of those things". That is however the precise nature of an illusion. It is a perception offering false data (in some way).

You're saying in a solipsistic world "we would not be able to draw conclusions" (based on our perceptions?), but the only argument you have offered to establish that is the idea of an infinite logical regress which depends upon semantic equivocation between "the conscious mind", "the things the conscious mind perceives" and "the whole". Since solipsists are not conversing with trees while operating on the presumption that the tree is equivalent to their own conscious mind, you ought not maintain that this is what solipsism necessarily entails.

-----------------------

The relevance of all this to the question posed in the title is to assail the notion that our "knowledge" is absolutely sure to be correct when it comes to our understanding of "the objective world". Such a grand destination has simply not yet been reached in any rational or empirical schools. The fundamental nature of the universe ("objective reality") is still an open problem, and there are a host of annoying and goal post sliding hypotheticals, like solipsism, which exist as thorns in the side of even the most well founded epistemological systems which would seek to establish some absolute form of "objective truth".

Under metaphysical solipsism ("the world and other minds do not have objective "existence"."), everything that exists is presumed to be a part of one's own mind, but not equivalent to one's own mind (that's kinda the whole ontological point of solipsism). The "Mind" ("self"(2)) encompasses everything that exists, including "self"(1). Everything that exists, as a whole, is "the mind". The "self"(1) is a part of this whole, and the stimuli the self(1) experiences (like trees and animals) is also a part of the greater "mind" (the whole), but it (a tree) is neither equivalent to self(1) or self(2). It is a thing generated by self(2) and perceived by self(1) (under metaphysical solipsism). — VagabondSpectre

This means then that my criticism applies.

If this were actually true that there were no independently existent things apart from self then the problem of infinite regress from vicious self recursion cannot be avoided.

But because things do exist independently of the mind, perceptions, subjective experience, self, or what ever terms you want to use, we are not subject to the problem of infinite regress in reality.

We can be logically certain that metaphysical solipsism is not true.

I'm probably being overly optimistic in assuming this might work, but could you explain to me in a specific, "practical" example how the infinite regress would go?

For example, say I'm talking to you and you discover that I'm a solipsist. I say things such as "That tree is actually just my own mental phenomena," and "You are just my own mental phenomena." "Only my mental phenomena exist."

Well, where on your view is an infinite regress going to enter the picture?

You will recall I provided a link to the definition of recursion.and self recursion.

The issue arises with the claim that there exist no independent and distinct objects.
Or the claim that everything is subjective perception.

If everything is just subjective perception, and that subjective perception has no access to any existence independent of itself, then this will be an example in which self recursion applies.
To avoid infinite regress necessitates that there exist things which exist independently of subjective perception, the self, the mind, or what have you.
If all that exists is dependent upon subjective perception then self recursion applies.

Basically you must concede the point that there are things which exist independent of subjective perception to avoid infinite regress.
What semantic acrobatics you perform to salvage solipsism at that point, I do not care.

My main point is that there necessarily exist distinct and independent objects.

Of course in reality there is no practical example of self recursion from solipsism because in reality solipsism is not the case, so I am sorry if this post does not address that.

Wait, though.

If I say things such as "That tree is actually just my own mental phenomena," and "You are just my own mental phenomena." "Only my mental phenomena exist," would you say that that is sufficient for me to be a solipsist? If not, why not?

And if it is, I'm asking you where, in this specific example, some infinite regress comes into play with my hypothetical views there. I'm not asking you with respect to things you'd need me to say in order for there to be an infinite regress. (And regarding that, by the way, I might very well say, for example, that there is no such thing as perception in reality; I could say that perception is a non-solpsistic concept, a fictional interpretation of my solipsistic mental phenomena. So it's not the case that everything is "subjective perception" because a fortiori it's not the case that anything is perception. But this is an aside, please address the other part instead.)

Re my request, I'm also asking for a specific example of what you think I'd need to say (that is, the sort of thing I'd need to say) that would be an infinite regress given "That tree is actually just my own mental phenomena" etc. In other words, give me a quote, not an abstract description as you did above. I want to examine how a hypothetical conversation would go, as if we were writing a Socratic dialogue.

If I say things such as "That tree is actually just my own mental phenomena," and "You are just my own mental phenomena." "Only my mental phenomena exist," would you say that that is sufficient for me to be a solipsist? If not, why not? — Terrapin Station

This seems to fall in line with the claim that we only have subjective access to information, so yes to me this would be subject to the issue I raise.
Again you seem to be claiming that we can not be sure of independently existent things.
This means our own existence would also be ill defined, again recall that if things do not exist independently then self and not-self are essentially logically equivalent.

And if it is, I'm asking you where, in this specific example, some infinite regress comes into play with my hypothetical views there.) — Terrapin Station

It is great that you realize that solipsism is only a hypothetical case.

The problem exactly would come from self reference or self defining.
Recall that if there is only subjective access then this means that any definition or reference will be restricted to that subjective thing.
So it is the claim that distinct and independently existing things do not exist or can not be reference which creates the problem of self recursion.

Lets look at what we mean by three important terms.
1. Recursion -

A recursive process is one in which objects are defined in terms of other objects of the same type. Using some sort of recurrence relation, the entire class of objects can then be built up from a few initial values and a small number of rules.

Note that when defining objects with recursion objects are treated as though they exist independently from each other, even if they are considered the same object each one must exist independently.
So you can claim that solipsism survives my criticism by appealing to the notion that perceptions have independent and distinct existence.
Perception of self exists independently of perception of tree.
That is a bit of semantic back pedaling but sure it check's out, as long as you don't then claim that the perception of tree cannot exist without the perception of the self.
That would mean you are implying that these things do not in fact exist independently and that is the sort of claim I debunk.

2. Self recursion -

Self-recursion is a recursion that is defined in terms of itself, resulting in an ill-defined infinite regress.

This will apply in the case where objects do not have any independent existence.
That is to say the only way to define or reference will be self recursive.
The only way to avoid self recursion is things exist independently of each other.
That is to say as long as a tree is a distinct and separate existence apart from the self and one does not depended upon the other.
So if solipsism is the claim that things do not exist independently of yourself, then I think it should be the person making this claim that should demonstrate how self recursion does not apply.

But you keep implying the burden of proof is on me to show that self recursion is infinitely regressive.
To my mind it should be obvious why self recursion applies to solipsism for the reasons I have pointed out.

3. Definition -

A definition assigns properties to some sort of mathematical object.

So this will mean to formally/logically apply properties.
If we define or categorize something then we must avoid self recursion, and we can not avoid self recursion if there are no independently existent things.

I'm not asking you with respect to things you'd need me to say in order for there to be an infinite regress. (And regarding that, by the way, I might very well say, for example, that there is no such thing as perception in reality; I could say that perception is a non-solpsistic concept, a fictional interpretation of my solipsistic mental phenomena. So it's not the case that everything is "subjective perception" because a fortiori it's not the case that anything is perception. But this is an aside, please address the other part instead.) — Terrapin Station

Again this is not a semantic issue that I raise it is syntactical one.
If there are no independently existent objects then self recursion applies, and that regress infinitely without any clear definitions of anything.

Re my request, I'm also asking for a specific example of what you think I'd need to say (that is, the sort of thing I'd need to say) that would be an infinite regress given "That tree is actually just my own mental phenomena" etc. In other words, give me a quote, not an abstract description as you did above. I want to examine how a hypothetical conversation would go, as if we were writing a Socratic dialogue. — Terrapin Station

The infinite regress, specifically, would apply if there were in fact no independently existing objects.

So it is if you say "Things have no objective existence in reality, there is only a subjective existence."
Then we can debunk this, because if it were in fact true there would be the problem of self recursion and the infinite regress it entails.

Again I do not agree with you that I have the burden of proof here and again I think the person claiming "There is no objectively existent things, only subjectively existent things." is the one that must show how self recursion does not then apply.

Again, I'm asking you to explain infinite regress specifically with the sentences I've put into quotation marks and ONLY with respect to those specific sentences. There's no reason to write anywhere near the volume of text you're writing--especially when you're not even responding in the context of the specific sentences I put into quotation marks.

Also, it's not that I believe that solipsism is necessarily hypothetical. It's just that I'm not personally a solipsist.

Yeah again it is not about semantics where you say something in particular that is self recursive the infinite regress is of syntactical consequence.


It is a syntactic consequence of self recursion.
Some examples of proofs are Curry's paradox and the Kleene-Rosser paradox.

Curry's paradox can be formulated in any language supporting basic logic operations that also allows a self-recursive function to be constructed as an expression. The following list gives some mechanisms that support the construction of the paradox but the list is not exhaustive....

...The self-recursive function can then be used to define a non terminating computation whose value is solution to an equation. In Curry's Paradox we use implication to construct a negation, that constructs an equation with no solution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry's_paradox#Language_capabilities_for_expressing_the_paradox
^
Link to a plain language example

And again I think the burden of proof is on the person claiming there is no access to independently existent things that must demonstrate that this would not lead to self recursion.

So yes or no does the set of sentences I presented entail an infinite regress? (Just answer yes or no or explain why you can not just answer yes or no.)

I am saying that yes the problem of self recursion does apply if the notion that things do not have independent existence applies.

So if your sentences are trying to convey the idea that there is no independently existing things then yes.

How can you really define the distinction between objective and subjective if we only ever are subjective.

The objective world remains only ever an inference at best. — intrapersona

How can you really define the distinction between subjective and objective if we only ever are objective?

The subjective world remains only ever an inference at best.

The idea that subjectivity really is just an objective process, is far more believable than the other way around.

If yes, then what I'm asking you is to give how the implied, infinite-regress sentences would have to go.

I feel like you don't understand as a result of your belief that because you can semantically express your assertions without infinite regress that then there are no syntactical issues.
Again I have already provided sources that explain the issue, if you are interested in how that type of self reference regresses infinitely I advise you to review this link once more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry's_paradox#Language_capabilities_for_expressing_the_paradox

Curry's paradox can be formulated in any language supporting basic logic operations that also allows a self-recursive function to be constructed as an expression. The following list gives some mechanisms that support the construction of the paradox but the list is not exhaustive.

1. Self-reference; "this sentence".
2. Through naming of an expression which includes the name.
2. Apply naive set theory (Unrestricted comprehension).

The logic rules used in the construction of the proof are,

1. rule of assumption for conditional proof
2. contraction
3. modus ponens

The self-recursive function can then be used to define a non-terminating computation whose value is solution to an equation. In Curry's Paradox we use implication to construct a negation, that constructs an equation with no solution.

Also I have pointed out several times, it is not my burden to prove that self recursion regresses infinitely, this is a result demonstrated in formal reasoning.
I am not here to discuss those results I am here to point out how they apply to solipsism.

It is your burden to demonstrate how your assertions avoid self recursion.

I have zero interest in you "explaining the issue."

What I'm interested in is you telling me what the infinite regress sentences would have to be in the example I gave.

There's a reason that that's what I'm interested in, but it's not something I'd explain until we've gone through the process, because doing so would undermine the whole point.

It is not my burden to prove that self recursion regresses infinitely.
It is your burden to show how you escape self recursion.

Why in the world would we be talking about "burdens"? And who is asking about a "proof" of anything? I thought we'd be capable of having a conversation, no?

.
To me there is nothing interesting to discuss.
Solipsism is not a very compelling philosophical topic.
It can only be hypothetically the case, and even then it is not logically founded.
I am amazed that people struggle with the "dilemma" at all.

Also I addressed your request with source material that illustrates how self recursion is infinitely regressive yet you continue to insist that I repeat myself.

If you had some point you wanted to arrive at, why not expedite our conversation and get to it?

I'm probably being overly optimistic in assuming this might work — Terrapin Station

;-)