Great response. But it's based on a misinterpretation of what I'm saying. And from not - I believe - engaging my ideas fully, and instead turning your responses to other commonly held logical fallacies.

I've repeated myself so many times, and you might have done a "gotcha" with ONE misspoken example. I don't really care at this point - if you do an honest rereading of my posts I'm NOT saying the you must prove something for it to be TRUE. Yes there's issues with that. But that's a straw man.

What I'm saying is "I need proof to believe something (other minds)." I also need proof to believe in God. I would go further and say "Any rational person will require proof in order to believe something."

So before you start dissecting what proof is, maybe it would be easier to point out the ad absurdem aspect here by rephrasing it. Aliens are actually easy to believe exist, or don't exist. Answer this: would you require proof to believe there's a giant carnivorous butterfly named "Ned" that is floating above my head right now. Do you believe me or need proof?

it's based on a misinterpretation of what I'm saying. — GLEN willows

I don't think so. You asked for help in understanding the relation between idealism and solipsism, and for a discussion of solipsism. You were asking why philosophers reject solipsism, but insisting that the rejection must take the form of a "proof". I've been attempting to show what the base opinion of philosophers generally might be, while attempting to show you the limitations of "proof".

So you say that you understand that there can be unproven truths, while maintaining that you requirer proof in order to believe that something is true. But of course as soon as you step outside of the philosophy forum, you drop that demand. If someone tells you that they live in Brisbane, you don't ask them for proof. If your partner tells you that they love you, you don't demand proof.

We sometimes need reasons to doubt as much as we need reasons to believe.

But moreover, there is the logical issue of the grounding for proof. If you demand proof for everything you believe, you will end up falling into a regress, running in a circle, or believing nothing.

I'm not out to catch you with a "gotcha". I am interested in explicating the points you raise, perhaps in a way that is mutually agreeable, but mostly with an eye towards checking the clarity of my own views. Philosophy isn't just sitting in an armchair making shit up. It's difficult and uncomfortable.

We may not be able to prove the solipsist wrong, but we can tell them to fuck off. Try this: If you are becoming pissed at my posts, then who is it you are becoming pissed at? Yourself?

That's not an argument, but perhaps an "intuition pump". There's more to philosophy than proof.

We're pattern chasers! That, however, ain't the whole story, oui?

You had me right up to "fuck off" haha. Does solispsism make you that mad?

Anyway, I'm totally calm and collected - doing this in between writing music...can't be angry while doing that. I tried to bail a couple of times, but realize it's probably good for my thinking if I kept going. I agree with you - this is clearing up and sharpening my own reasoning.

Can we agree on something if we go forward - in my world, simple texting etiquette is if someone asks a question, it's simply polite to answer it. I specifically suggested you answer a question before starting to dissect "proof" which you went ahead and did anyway. I can see all the issues, although I think there's a lot of straw men hiding there - (of course I never said you need proof of EVERYTHING).

But first can you answer this question (carefully updated in brackets], because it gets to the heart of the issue IMO. would you require proof to believe there's a giant carnivorous butterfly named "Ned" that is floating above my head right now. Do you believe me [accept that it's real] or need [some kind of] proof?

Banno - gotta go shopping.....

fuck off — GLEN willows

I'm Australian. 'tis but our customary parlance.

I tried to bail a couple of times, — GLEN willows

Me too. every day since 1970. If you have a choice, best not get involved in philosophy.

Sometimes a question is best answered by being ignored. Ned and other folk are not on the same plane. I'll take your word for it, and suppose you perhaps breed Feniseca.

Now, back on topic...?

would you require proof to believe there's a giant carnivorous butterfly named "Ned" that is floating above my head right now. Do you believe me [accept that it's real] or need [some kind of] proof? — GLEN willows

The answer to this question depends entirely on what one's prior expectations about the space above your head are. We require proof not to believe things, but to change our beliefs about things. I have a belief about the space above your head already (we can test this by asking me to bet on its contents, for example). By claiming that it actually contains a carnivorous butterfly, you're asking me to change my belief. I need some reason to do that (although as @Banno has already said, 'proof' would be too strong a requirement).

Regarding other minds, I already believe there are other minds. I was born with that belief, I've been attempting to emulate, predict and manipulate those other minds since I was a few month's old. I need 'proof'/evidence/justifications to change my mind, but not to keep it how it is by default.

I was born with that belief, I've been attempting to emulate, predict and manipulate those other minds since I was a few month's old. I need 'proof'/evidence/justifications to change my mind, but not to keep it how it is by default.

Yikes. I'm as dumb as a post, but this makes no rational sense at all. Do you really think being born with a belief is a reason to believe it?

Yes, true that would be better since we are speaking about proof. On the other hand, evidence can be proof, or proof enough, as I note below.

I would consider direct observation to be proof (proof enough anyway, even though we can always get radically skeptical and doubt anything we like). So, I'm thinking in the empirical context, not in the formal logic context. For example catching my wife in bed with another man would be proof that she is being promiscuous. I can look at any appropriate map I like to prove that Sydney is in Australia or live there or go there. There are countless examples.like this,

The problem I see with the notion of justification is that it is not crystal clear what constitutes it in the various situations we might find ourselves in.

Anyway my point was that if we accept JTB, it can be the case that we know things without knowing that we know them (because we cannot be sure what counts as justification and we don't always know if this or that is true), or not know things when we think we do.

Sometimes a question is best answered by being ignored.

And you did a stellar job of doing that. As I expected. It's a thought experiment. like - you know - philosophical zombies? If you don't see the point in it, I'm wasting my time here.

And if you were as politician I'd say "It's a simple yes or no answer sir."

I'll take your word for it, and suppose you perhaps breed Feniseca. — Banno

why'd you change f**k off to "mad." It was actually refreshing to heard a four letter word here.

why'd you change f**k off to "mad." — GLEN willows

Where? And why the fucking stars?

I've stumped an Australian philosopher. I can check that off my list.

I can simplify it?

mad?
— GLEN willows

I'm Australian. 'tis but customary parlance.

What? I changed "mad" to "fuck off", I recall.

So where are we WRT your query? can we get back o the topic?

why'd you change f**k off to "mad.":smile:
I thought there might be a forum rule about swearing. I'M TRYING TO BE NICE DUDE!

NOTE: I put a happy face on that, it didn't come through. Maybe those are censored.

My query was the topic, you missed the point. It's ok, I've read your other posts, you clearly agree there are some things you won't believe without proof. Correct?

Weird. Could be a glitch in the Matrix.

Do you really think being born with a belief is a reason to believe it? — GLEN willows

You already do. That's the point.

If you ask me "what does the space above Glen's head contain?" Am I equally likely to say "Nothing", "A hat", or "a carnivorous butterfly called Ned"?

I assume no-one is going to argue that all three are equally likely responses. Which means that prior to my being asked the question, some state of affairs must exist such as to cause that uneven probability distribution. That state of affairs is what I call a belief - a propensity to act as if... I am predisposed to act as if the space above Glen's head contains nothing, one of those actions is to answer "Nothing" when asked "what does the space above Glen's head contain". We've just established that prior to being asked the question, I already had the predisposition to answer "Nothing", we agreed that (for whatever reason) it was more likely than any other response.

--- All beliefs should be proved before being accepted.
--- Really ? Then prove that all beliefs should be proved before being accepted.

If you ask me "what does the space above Glen's head contain?" Am I equally likely to say "Nothing", "A hat", or "a carnivorous butterfly called Ned"? — Isaac

:up:

@Baden is on line, and has a dislike for robust language.

So let's go back over it again. I accepted your odd statement, in the interests of charity, hypothesising that you perhaps breed Feniseca tarquinius, the largest of the carnivorous butterflies.

Now what was the point of your question?

And how is Ned?

That there are some things you won't believe without proof. Yes or no.

Well, yes. And there are some things we accept without proof. Go on.

I already had the predisposition to answer "Nothing",

Again I'm shocked that you believe having a predisposition to believe something means anything at all.

Ok now we're getting somewhere.

There has to be proof for me to believe in other minds.

Again I'm shocked that you believe having a predisposition to believe something means anything at all. — GLEN willows

Read more carefully. I didnt say "a predisposition to believe" I said "a predisposition to act as if...".

And why 'shocked'?

Why...I never said anything like that.

"We've just established that prior to being asked the question, I already had the predisposition to answer "Nothing""

And...?