A corollary of fallibilism we can be certain of 'anything' for which we lack grounds to doubt (Witty).

Possibilitism: in an infinite universe every possible state of matter and affairs is bound to exist.

Potentialism: In a finite space anything possible must occur given infinite time.

Exotemporabilism: I don't know what that is. Something that is outside of the time in the universe. I can't imagine what it is, though. No clue what it could be.

Is it's possible that Mark wasn't home that day a good justification for I doubt if Mark killed Susan? It's possible that what we consider to be reality could be an illusion. Do I now posses a good reason to doubt the authenticity of reality?

Principle of plenitude
1. Static = Possibilitism
2. Dynamic = Potentialism

Exotemporabilism is a regular feature in religion.

Thank you, Agent Smith! I always bow to your immense amount of lexical knowledge, far superior to mine.

multialiasism - the practice of having more than one identity by the same one user on a forums-based website

Thank you, Agent Smith! — god must be atheist

:up:

I always bow to your immense amount of lexical knowledge, far superior to mine. — god must be atheist

You jest of course.

Would the thought everything exists except me qualify as a delusion?

Would the thought everything exists except me qualify as a delusion? — Agent Smith

In a psychiatric sense, yes; in a philosophical sense it is a false statement.

You jest of course. — Agent Smith

Well, the fact is that I know very little. I haven't progressed to the ultimate knowledge, that is, to be able to truthfully claim I know nothing; but I'm approaching it tangentially.

:up:

I think I'm an illusion. Am I mad?

Depends on your pov. If you think someone else regards you as an illusion, then you are not mad. If you, yourself, regard yourself as an illusion, then take two aspirins and I'll see you in the morning.

:rofl:

No.

Yes (e.g. anosognosia.) Also, to claim, or believe, "I do not exist" is a performative contradiction.

Well, since one is not objectively what one subjectively seems, one is illusiory. You only can outrun your own shadow, Smith, if you're "mad". :eyes:

Very helpful comment. Bookmarked it (anosognosia) for future reference.

The 3 marks of existence (re Buddhism)
1. Anicca (impermanence)
2. Anatta (no self)
3. [ii]Dukkha[/i] (suffering/unsatisfactoriness)

Would the thought everything exists except me qualify as a delusion? — Agent Smith

The point of the cogito is that that is a contradictory position. If you state that something, whatever it is, exists, than the substance making that statement has to exist as well. We immediately come up against the 'I' stating it. It does not necessarily have to be an 'I' with all the features we commonly attach to it, but there is 'thinking substance', res cogintans.

I think, more precisely, anatta means "no" permanent – independently existent – "self" (i.e. ego is maya (an illuson) due to attachment, or karma (habit) of treating the impermanent (self) as "permanent").

@180 Proof@Tobias

Contextualize the following statement made by me within solipsism.

I don't exist. — Agent Smith

I don't exist. — Agent Smith

This is an occurrance. It is dependent on someone saying this. It can't exist (the statement) without someone uttering it.

My money is on you uttering it. The only way to go around that is to show an picture of your image, and a ventriloquist says "I don't exist", giving the illusion that the picture of the imaginary person said that.

Imagine you don't exist, but someone insists that the picture shows you. Then the ventriloquist convinces us that the image says "I don't exist".

But this is too much trouble. To make this happen, you'd need to hire 1. a ventriloquist, 2. An artist or photographer to create an image of you, 3. an agent of fortune to make sure you don't exist at the time of this event.

This would cost too much just to make sure we understand that you don't exist when the ventriloquist says "I don't exist."

Solipsism founders on the existence of the image as image.

Narcissus falls in love with his image and does not see the pool. Nor does he see himself as he exists.

Or rather, @180 Proof, @Tobias, @god must be atheist

Contextualize the following statement made by me within solipsism.

I exist. — Agent Smith

Solipsism founders on the existence of the image as image.

Narcissus falls in love with his image and does not see the pool. Nor does he see himself as he exists. — Paine

Double whammy!

Contextualize the following statement made by me within solipsism.

I exist. — Agent Smith

I see myself as existing; the image of me is conceptualized. It is not the same thing as myself, but rather an illusion. However, it is not the same as to say that I AM an illusion; it is only the image I see myself as, which is the illusion.

With the same token, you can say that you exist, because to have an illusionary self-image, you must exist to generate or else to see or conceptualize this self-image, because without you existing, there would not be any illusions that you experience.

:up:

Nice!

That's a reshash of Descartes' cogito etgo sum.

That's a reshash of Descartes' cogito etgo sum. — Agent Smith

That formulation leaves out a critical component. Is one being deceived by design, or can one proceed in the confidence that it would be stupid to fool somebody who is pretty clueless to start with?

That formulation leaves out a critical component. Is one being deceived by design, or can one proceed in the confidence that it would be stupid to fool somebody who is pretty clueless to start with? — Paine

Therein lies the rub.

The Western mind has always been directed outwards, relatively that is. With this outer mindset, the West is now in charge of mamma nature - flattening mountains, creating islands, diverting rivers, draining lakes, irrigating deserts, etc.

Then there's Mirror Self Recognition Test.