I heard it said that solipsism can't be refuted because it's logically impeccable, but does that make it true? — Darkneos

How's this for logic? Prejudice blocks our minds from "an area we have yet to consider." :cool:

Of Superposition and Solipsism : Indeed, an answer to the mind-body problem might come from an area we have yet to consider.
https://prizedwriting.ucdavis.edu/superposition-and-solipsism-survey-quantum-mechanical-approaches-addressing-%E2%80%9C-hard-problem%E2%80%9D

You could always reflect on the notion that you’re the only being in the Universe and that all other beings are your projections is simply absurd.

I heard it said that solipsism can't be refuted because it's logically impeccable, but does that make it true? — Darkneos

Can you both intend X and intend not-X at the same time and in the same respect?

I take it that you have on occasion had your intentions obstructed by what you experience to be the intentions of others. If there are no others, then your answer to this question could only be “yes”. Yet so answering results in a) inconsistency with your own experiences and b) a logical lack of validity to any assertion imaginable (such as via the principle of explosion).

Ergo, other selves are.

One should add, as well as an impartial reality that is not of your will’s making and will thereby obstruct some of your intentions were you to hold these.

Point being, solipsism is not logically impeccable.

Solipsism is a belief. A belief is neither logical nor illogical. ARguments are logical or illogical. Further, something not being refutable does not make it true. For example, In 20,000 BC a woman gave birth to a three headed child. i can't refute that, the statement, but that does not make it true.

You could always reflect on the notion that you’re the only being in the Universe and that all other beings are your projections is simply absurd. — Wayfarer

Don't be so negative. Why not reflect on how the absurdity of being the only being in the universe is really really fun?

If all others beings are mere projections from yourself, they are no less significant, and possibly more so since the solipsist would understand them to be immediately himself. In fact all other beings would have no existence external to the solipsists immediacy, making immediacy of utmost importance.

I suppose speculative thinking is a terrifying prospect to the solipsist. His uncertainty must be so immensely unbearable that he actually turns to the very projections from his own mind to give himself the illusion of contentment (delusion?), that is: because his projection says "it is so", then "it is so", and so it is.

Again butchering QM to make a point. The person in the article misunderstands observation as it applies to QM thinking that it means consciousness when it doesn't.

Also that article is useless, it's essentially a long winded way of saying "I don't know". Neuroscience is already getting to the point of solving consciousness, QM has no role in this.

Also for an article that has solipsism in the title it appears nowhere in the actual article.

I heard it said a lot that it is logically consistent and can't be refuted. I mean all I can be aware of is my own conscious experience and it's possible that there is nothing else.

https://askaphilosopher.org/2012/08/22/can-there-be-certainty-outside-my-currently-observed-world/

Solipsism being true would not be fun. It would lead to despair and tragedy as one would become keenly aware that they are "It".

I'm not entirely sure how that logic checks out, is there a way to expand on that?

You haven’t answered the question I posed. Expressed somewhat differently: Can you both intend X and not intend X at the same time and in the same respect?

It an important question. If there is either experiential or logical uncertainties about the answer, please explain where this uncertainty could possibly come from.

If no rational doubts occur for the issue, then you have yourself certainty (both experiential and logical) that when others appear to thwart your intentions it is in fact not yourself who is doing so.

Given that a self is at minimum a locus of awareness - i.e., a first-person point of view - which furthermore intends stuff, and given the aforementioned certainty, then via entailment you also hold the certainty that other selves occur. Just as their awareness of you is not your awareness of yourself, so too (and more pivotally to the argument I'm presenting) their intentions are not your intentions. Therefore, there occur other selves: loci of awareness and intention other than yourself.

I should also add, there’s massive amounts of equivocation that can and does occur in relation to what a self is. So, prior to engaging in discussions about the notion of a “sole self”, can you also please elaborate on what a self is to you. This especially if you disagree with the minimalist definition I've provided.

As to the link you’ve posted, I’m not much interested in what others say about the matter; both lies and bullshit can be expressed by others and neither should be believed. I’m interested in what your own experiences and logic have to say about the matter.

I'll further address your questions on the condition that you first address mine.

No, the definition of self that you provided is enough and somewhat one the lines of what I think a self is as all.

I know there is the argument of P-Zombies, but if I never heard of the term it would not be my first reaction to a new world. Neither would that the world is my creation.

But as to intending both X and not X:

"When you tear down the labels and rationalizations behind everything you'll find there is no longer any point of reference, and no coherency. You are left with nothing but the sensation of your own isolated perception, with no clear source or meaning in sight."

"It seems to me that absolute knowledge is the totality of the individual's current knowledge at any given moment. Any knowledge that has not yet been acquired is nonexistent until observed. Therefore, the equivocation of metaphysical and epistemological solipsism is still consistent with my own perceptual experience."

It's not really what I think about it but what others say about it. I don't want to believe it but it's a select others that say I am mistaken in dismissing it as false or wrong. We can go on about what I think about it, but that does not matter. What matters is the counter arguments I hear against me, mostly that it can't be refuted, is logically perfect, or that I have no evidence to believe my position, or that solipsism is the default.

It's not really what I think about it but what others say about it. I don't want to believe it but it's a select others that say I am mistaken in dismissing it as false or wrong. — Darkneos

I'm off to work for now, but wanted to make the comment: So too will some argue that Earth is flat irrespective of what you and I say. Why take what they say so seriously?

Especially when it comes to experience and intention ... you know your own better than anyone else, right?

I heard that a statement can be logically valid but not true and that truth isn't the same as validity? — Darkneos

If I'm wearing shoes, then the moon is made of green cheese. I am wearing shoes, therefore the moon is made of green cheese. Certainly valid; evidence to date suggests untrue.

Logic is not especially difficult when you've gotten used to it, but can be a little bumpy until you do.

That's my case. I think that because something is logical that it must be true. I'm still getting used to the whole "valid but not true" thing.

I'm off to work for now, but wanted to make the comment: So too will some argue that Earth is flat irrespective of what you and I say. Why take what they say so seriously?

Especially when it comes to experience and intention ... you know your own better than anyone else, right? — javra

I mean yes...but what if my interpretation is wrong like the quotes say? According to some they say solipsism supports their experience. I can't say I agree though. But the point they make about when you tear down everything else all you have left is your own isolated perception. Some say this is Idealism and empiricism taken to their logical extreme.

"In solipsism, only the mind exists. It is important to note that the mind refers not to the brain, or one's ego perception, but the totality of all that you perceive, this includes all of the senses. What are the people around me other than images, sounds, and feelings?"

.

There's also some evidence from quantum physics to suggest solipsism: https://qr.ae/pNgq9Q
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_quantum_mechanics

Solipsism being true would not be fun. — Darkneos

I didnt say it would be fun. I said reflecting on the absurdity of it is fun. And it is.

For example, if I were a solipsist, you would merely be a projection of my mind, and I would literally be conversing with myself. What would that mean? Is my existence any less significant or less serious because everything originates with me, and exists only in my immediacy? No, Existence has the same bearing on a subject regardless of its metaphysical qualities; that is to say, how an existing subject relates to existence is infinitely more important than the nature of existence.

How is this not fun?

It would lead to despair and tragedy as one would become keenly aware that they are "It". — Darkneos

And, it is the existing subject's relation to existence, not the nature of existence, but the relation that causes despair and makes a tragedy. As an existing subject, one is effectively "It", and this is the case regardless of whether solipsism is true or not.

If solipsism is untrue and there are other subjects like me, I still cannot directly access their subjective immediacy as I do my own. In this way I am unique and separate. Whether there are others like me or not, I am (as a subject) alone as it were. I think alone, dream alone, shit alone, die alone...this is what existence as a subject entails, even if you are incessantly surrounded by crowds imitating your every move. This senario seems to me to be even more dreadful and tragic than that of solipsism.

Just remember, when in solitude, everyone is effectively a solipsist, or maybe not, who knows?

What are the people around me other than images, sounds, and feelings?" — Darkneos

They are immediate, and whatever you believe the nature of existence to be, is what everything can be reduced or expanded to. It really matters whether your attitude is elimanitivist or speculativist.

If existence is only an aesthetic projection, then everything is reducible to sensation. But subjective immediacy is not merely confined to direct sensation, it also involves cognition. Hence the solipsist, as an existing subject, is not simply restricted to an aesthetic projection, but has an intelligible dimension of cognitive projections.

But none of this is very important when we consider the ethical dimension of solipsism. The solipsist can understand the nature of existence (what is seen and known) in any way he pleases. None of it matters and it is always validated. But how the solipsist relates to existence is very interesting. Although everything is a projection, the solipsist still suffers the consequences of his actions, and must relate appropriately to his projections if he favors a particular outcome. It seems that he must makes ethical decisions, decisions that have consequences as serious as those that concern nonsolipsists.

The fun thing about solipsism, everybody can do it!

And, it is the existing subject's relation to existence, not the nature of existence, but the relation that causes despair and makes a tragedy. As an existing subject, one is effectively "It", and this is the case regardless of whether solipsism is true or not.

If solipsism is untrue and there are other subjects like me, I still cannot directly access their subjective immediacy as I do my own. In this way I am unique and separate. Whether there are others like me or not, I am (as a subject) alone as it were. I think alone, dream alone, shit alone, die alone...this is what existence as a subject entails, even if you are incessantly surrounded by crowds imitating your every move. This senario seems to me to be even more dreadful and tragic than that of solipsism.

Just remember, when in solitude, everyone is effectively a solipsist, or maybe not, who knows? — Merkwurdichliebe

That's not true though. Because there are others around me I am not alone. I don't think alone, and I hopefully won't die alone. But if solipsism were the case then it would be true.

I can't see why anyone would do it. Willingly choose to be cosmically alone and shut off from any friends or loved ones.

What about the quantum physics that proves it though?

The fun thing about solipsism, everybody can do it! — Merkwurdichliebe

:rofl: Quite.

But how do you compare the fun factor to other what-ifs? I'm sure better one's can be found, but here's an example: What if extraterrestrials (that they exist is a good what-if for many) teleported the sun out out our galaxy and into another (teleportation is a staple what-if in many a philosophical hypothetical, typically used to gain wisdom (cough) into personal identity issues; I'm here extrapolating), this exactly seven minutes ago such that in one minute's time there won't be any sunlight? In my view, this is a far better roller-coaster ride of what-ifs than is solipsism, which is kind'a bland and boring. One can even converge the two: the same question posed but with everything now being a projection of the given solipsist.

@Darkneos I now find this thread to be more about a phobia (i.e., an unreasonable fear) than about issues of experience based logic. And I'm by no means qualified to address the former. If we'd start taking all the what-ifs we can collectively fathom seriously we'd implode. Life is more than just perception, it is also action. And no, you are not alone. I'll defer to @Merkwurdichliebe and others from here on out. Sincerely, all the best to you from me, me being a different self than the one you are.

I don't think you like my communication much, so I will keep it brief.

I am stuck in England's second lockdown. I will say that lockdown and social distancing is a soliptist universe, crawling into bed, reading a philosophy website. It all feels unreal, communication with characters like The Mad Fool, Darkneos and Hippyhead. Threads about reality and masturbation ethics.

If only it was a dream....? But I am trapped in my own sensory reality of lying in bed, reading my phone, just like you are trapped in your private universe.

I heard it said that solipsism can't be refuted because it's logically impeccable, but does that make it true? — Darkneos

Solipsism refutes itself as even a solipsist would distinct between himself and others/things. This makes it unsound - if there was only himself he could not speak of other things: there would be nothing to experience.

Except it is about issues with experience based logic as I have tried to show is the case here. Solipsism would also argue that all sensation that one experiences is produced by the mind.

"I suppose sensation is being as opposed to not being. Without sensation, there is nothing, which is inconceivable to the conscious mind. Stop moving completely for a moment, stop thinking, do not attempt to rationalize anything and just be still. Your state of being at that time will be the only thing in existence from your perspective, to assume that anything else is existing will require faith. I guess I can't give you a concrete answer because you are still presupposing that you are experiencing a "thing." Why does this have to be so? When you tear down the labels and rationalizations behind everything you'll find there is no longer any point of reference, and no coherency. You are left with nothing but the sensation of your own isolated perception, with no clear source or meaning in sight."

The logic is clear from this quoted post, that all I have is immediate experience and anything else is an act of faith. I even posted a thread that explains the issues with experience based logic.

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4846074/fpart/7/vc/1#4846074

Solipsism refutes itself as even a solipsist would distinct between himself and others/things. This makes it unsound - if there was only himself he could not speak of other things: there would be nothing to experience — Heiko

The thread I linked addresses this part. The solipsist can only be sure that they exist themselves. It's not unsound. Why do we presuppose that we are experiencing a thing when according to the wiki page on it:

"There is no conceptual or logically necessary link between mental and physical—between, say, the occurrence of certain conscious experience or mental states and the 'possession' and behavioral dispositions of a 'body' of a particular kind."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

So again, how does it refute itself because so far the arguments don't seem so strong. You can intend X and not X by simply waving it away as a figment of your mind. Other people are figments of your mind and imagination. You cannot hold with certainty that other selves occur as javra wants to posit. There is no inconsistency with your experiences. How do you know they are aware? How do you know they have intentions and furthermore if they do how do you know you didn't intend them to be that way?

See what I mean? It's trickier than I hoped and that doesn't help when dealing with it.

I heard it said that solipsism can't be refuted because it's logically impeccable, but does that make it true? — Darkneos

Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds : A modern philosopher cannot evade solipsism under the Cartesian picture of consciousness without accepting the function attributed to God by Descartes (something few modern philosophers are willing to do).
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/

So again, how does it refute itself because so far the arguments don't seem so strong. You can intend X and not X by simply waving it away as a figment of your mind — Darkneos

Well, the "figment of your mind" is just as much you as whiskey is grains. There is something you do not perceive as yourself. So how would it make sense to say it is yourself then? You cannot say "This is me" and "This is not me" at the same time. And the logical extension "There is only me" becomes pretty ridiculous if you grab yourself a chair.

Solipsism is proof of the distinction between coherency and correspondence(meaning and truth).

As was stated above a modern philosopher cannot evade it under certain models.

It's also not as ridiculous as it sounds:

"I will begin by saying that by any standard of proof, the onus is on an opponent of solipsism to prove solipsism is false. That is because solipsism is the default stance. You exist, and that is all you can be sure of. Basic Descartes which has not been shown to be false. The best argument against Cogito is that ‘maybe you only think you exist’ but this argument can never get off the ground since this already implies the Cogito. (How can you think something without existing?)

Now,

IT is important to define the different notions of solipsism.

First there is the notion that all that exists is your mind. This might encompass an experience.

If if encompasses an experience then nothing disproves solipsism. Your feeling something bump is just a sensation of yours, as is your sensation of being in control of things when you are. All that exists are the sensations, and they are what comprise your mind.

Mind might encompass experience plus action
If it encompasses action then there must be something that you have action over. Therefor either you have action over all things or else you have action over some thing, IN WHICH case there exist multiple things.

Now solipsism can still hold true if you think the self has action over some of its ‘body’. IF you think that the self is comprised of a body and a mind, then solipsism is still default, because quite simply, the things you experience, the ‘people’ you have relationships with are just part of your body, part that you do not have control over.

To deny solipsism in this sense is to say that other people have conscious minds, but this is not proven and in fact we have no way of proving this. We take it by faith.

If the self is considered to have control over all of itself, then solipsism is clearly FALSE because we do not have control of everything.



So the senses that solipsism is not disproven are:

All that exists is your experience, including your experience of control and of being affected by things that you perceive as ‘other’.

Or

All that exists is your mind and your body. You have control over some aspects of the body, and not others. The body supplies your mind with sensations. The crucial point is that no other minds exist.

A sense that solipsism IS disproven is:

All that exists is you (either body+mind or just mind), and you have control over every aspect of yourself.
This is not true because we simply don't have control over everything.

Solipsism is a most potent idea in the context of philosophy of MIND. Does your consciousness exist in a world with other consciousnesses or is it just your consciousness?

Since each consciousness only has access to its own consciousness, it has no way of proving that any other consciousness exists. Therefor the default stance is SOLIPSISM. Nevertheless this is hard to accept because we see other ‘people’ who seem to behave just like us, therefor we infer INDUCTIVELY that other consciousness probably exists, unproven.”

Solipsism is fucking rubbish!


Solipsism is a philosophical position.
All philosophical positions require language use.
All language use requires shared meaning.
All shared meaning requires a plurality of creatures.
If solipsism is true there is no such plurality of creatures.
If solipsism is true there is no shared meaning.
If solipsism is true there is no language use.
If solipsism is true there are no philosophical positions.
Solipsism is a philosophical position.

Draw your own conclusion.

I’m pretty sure he’s coming from the vantage that, as with a dream of sleep, everything he experiences during awakened states is a waking dream produced by HIS mind alone - with this being rationalized by him via him not having certainty for there being other sources of awareness and intention except for he himself.

One problem to this is that, as with any dream of sleep wherein one interacts with others within the given dream, for his non-self-mind to act and react to what he is or is not doing, his non-self-mind has to be aware of what he is or is not doing. Such that the mind addresses is fragmented into numerous sources of awareness and intention of which he is only one of many. This as is is typical in many an REM dream.

We infer all the happenings of REM dreams to occur within our own personal mind, and this because these happenings are found to all be private to ourselves upon awakening from sleep: others do not share our REM dreams. In the conceptualization of reality as the waking dream one awakens to from sleep states, however, the mind in question is not private to any one of the disparate sources of awareness and intention that are to be found in the so conceptualized waking dream. Instead, all these disparate sources pertain to a common mind - such that the given waking dream mind belongs to none of them individually. And there is no awakening (as a self in a world of non-self) from the waking dream such that the waking dream of physical reality becomes “a personal and private fabrication of MY MIND” that is not shared by anyone else.

So in this conceptualization of existence wherein we awaken to a waking dream, the “mind” addressed in effect encapsulates all the sources of awareness and intention that interact (both human and non-human). Thereby not pertaining to any one source of awareness and intention. Thereby constituting one interpretation of a non-physicalist existential reality that, all the same, is constituted of multiple selves which all pertain to a common mind—for instance, a common effete mind as C.S. Peirce would say.

For the solipsist, there is an insistent equivocation between “me”, a source of awareness and intention, and “my mind” which is not “me” but instead belongs to “me”—such that both “me” and “my mind” are illogically affirmed to be identical. This is as equally true of mind (in whichever ontology) that is composed of both conscious awareness and sub- or unconscious awareness—such that both are conflated into “me” as conscious awareness—as it is in regard to the notion of mind as that which constitutes reality as a waking dream—wherein all others are irrationally deemed to be “figments of my imagination as a conscious awareness”.... Or, else, "my mind's figments of imagination" which, again, is conflated with the "me" that is one source of awareness and intention.

Because of this unsound conflation, they then insist that everything is “me”. Hence, the sole-self position … wherein everything, including logic, can be waived off as a figment of “my imagination”.

But if logic can be waived off as irrelevant, I fail to see the point in solipsists (because there’s more than one out there) attempting to use logic to affirm their case.

First there is the notion that all that exists is your mind. — Darkneos

Ask yourself who that "you" is in the sentence. It talks of "my mind" but my mind and my self - aren't those different things alltogether? So what does solipsism even mean? "All is mind" is idealism.

Good post, javra.

We infer all the happenings of REM dreams to occur within our own personal mind, and this because these happenings are found to all be private to ourselves upon awakening from sleep: others do not share our REM dreams. — javra

Even in dreams the world you are in is not the subject of experience. It just does not make sense. It takes "something else", which, by its own terms, may not be, and declares it as "one self" while also staying "something else". The "sources" thingy is nonsense either: Here the wanna-be solipsist tries to double himself, but even then: When there is him - as experiencing subject - and him - as the fabricating source - there is again two things: An experiencing subject and the fabricating source. If that "him as" would cound as an argument, then we could proclaim Chewbaccaism as irrefutable: There is only Chewbacca as you and Chewbacca as others. Who would doubt that?

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4846074/fpart/3/vc/1#4846074

"Any type of sensory input. We divide this sensory input into categories such as sight, touch, sound, smell, etc. What we fail to acknowledge is that this classification of the senses is merely constructed and all sensation that we experience is just that, experience. It is difficult to define sensations because when we peel back the layers and look to their essence, there is nothing to be found. There is nothing other than the immediate totality of your perceptual state of being. This remains so whether or not you accept solipsism."

"I'd also like to point out how alarmingly consistent the tenets of solipsism are with the theories of quantum mechanics, namely, "the observer determines the outcome of the experiment." How could this possibly be so if not looked at from a solipsist viewpoint?

The same goes for the "we are all one" philosophy preached by Buddhism and other Eastern religions. In the solipsist sense, we are all one because everything exists within the single individual perception. If this is not so, then that immediately falls apart, because we are simply not all one. I am not the people who are replying to my post, I am the person that is typing this one. There is nothing to suggest otherwise because the only perception I have ever experienced is my own."

So in this conceptualization of existence wherein we awaken to a waking dream, the “mind” addressed in effect encapsulates all the sources of awareness and intention that interact (both human and non-human). Thereby not pertaining to any one source of awareness and intention. Thereby constituting one interpretation of a non-physicalist existential reality that, all the same, is constituted of multiple selves which all pertain to a common mind—for instance, a common effete mind as C.S. Peirce would say.

For the solipsist, there is an insistent equivocation between “me”, a source of awareness and intention, and “my mind” which is not “me” but instead belongs to “me”—such that both “me” and “my mind” are illogically affirmed to be identical. This is as equally true of mind (in whichever ontology) that is composed of both conscious awareness and sub- or unconscious awareness—such that both are conflated into “me” as conscious awareness—as it is in regard to the notion of mind as that which constitutes reality as a waking dream—wherein all others are irrationally deemed to be “figments of my imagination as a conscious awareness”.... Or, else, "my mind's figments of imagination" which, again, is conflated with the "me" that is one source of awareness and intention. — javra

I fail to see how this is unsound though. I mean just calling it a figment seems to be an explanation and there is nothing in solipsism that explicitly says there is an author to this. But for the purpose of solipsism (as in the threads I've shown) "me" and "my mind" are essentially one and the same. Regardless all we truly have is our own immediate sensory perception, which is also what it argues and one would find this point hard to deny.

Solipsism is fucking rubbish!


Solipsism is a philosophical position.
All philosophical positions require language use.
All language use requires shared meaning.
All shared meaning requires a plurality of creatures.
If solipsism is true there is no such plurality of creatures.
If solipsism is true there is no shared meaning.
If solipsism is true there is no language use.
If solipsism is true there are no philosophical positions.
Solipsism is a philosophical position.

Draw your own conclusion. — creativesoul

It's still in the realm of possibility that it was all formulated in my mind. I heard the private language argument before but I also heard it's weak against solipsism. I mean one could just create all the meaning in order to organize and establish one's ideas in order for it to make sense to oneself. I don't see how language requires shared meaning, it just needs one in order to understand it.