So I’m wondering, again, how others deal with this. — Darkneos

I approach it similarly to the way Alven Plantinga argues for the rationality of theism. Demonstrating rationality is distinct from proving something true. It's rational to believe ~solipsism because:

1) a natural world that produces creatures who's survival depends on successfully interacting with the external environment would entail the creatures having an innate (pre-semantic/pre-abstraction) knowledge that there is an external world.
2) Applying abstract reasoning to our innate understanding of the world entails ~solipsism
3) it is rational to maintain a belief that has not been defeated. Solipsism is logically possible, but mere possibility is not a defeater.

The possbility of solipsism is nothing more than a thought experiment. It demonstrates that we necessarily have basic beliefs at rock bottom. A belief like this, that is a result of the structure of the world, is basic "in the proper way" (as Plantinga puts it); i.e. its "properly basic".

I told you have seen professionals before and nothing helped.

Also I’m not sure this is it but I think I found a post that says it proves it: https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-prove-solipsism/answer/Tonio-Barmadosa

Also this: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GcSYdmHKi8QmYjyJG/can-solipsism-be-disproven

Of course, I'm not, in a thread where you've asked for "help moving past solipsism" you've adamantly defended your position, choices and values to everyone who replied to you. You say "I've tried to challenge myself and it didn't work", all I see is someone who absolutely refuses to challenge themselves on even the most minor of points.

You're unwilling to be challenged by others, gave up on challenging yourself, and will only defend yourself against any and all criticism. You're compelled by an argument you don't remember, and say you can do nothing about it. If I meet you where you are, I've accepted your position is hopeless.

I am meeting you exactly where you are, I'm just not accepting what you say as truth, because it's not the truth. I could debate you on solipsism, but I've seen your replies to others who attempted that. You gave short, dismissive replies, and I'd just get the same, it was obvious to me that you aren't going to be convinced the way you want to be.

You haven't even explained your position on solipsism and apparently refuse to do so, we need to undermine the quora post's argument instead, but without knowing it. Under these conditions, it's 100% impossible to change your mind there either, you seemingly demand that I choose only paths that necessarily result in you believing in solipsism, or else I'm not doing what you want. You also refuse to challenge any of your interpretations or characterisations surrounding solipsism, you don't see how that makes progress impossible?

Well fine, I hope some months down the line, you try to challenge yourself again and explore new methods until you find success. If you actually give me your position on solipsism I'll respond, I'm sure it's trash and can be debunked easily, considering it's completely illogical to be devoted to concepts like truth and reality, while also believing the universe exists in your mind. Otherwise, good luck to you, I hope find the courage to try again somewhere down the line.

Of course, I'm not, in a thread where you've asked for "help moving past solipsism" you've adamantly defended your position, choices and values to everyone who replied to you. You say "I've tried to challenge myself and it didn't work", all I see is someone who absolutely refuses to challenge themselves on even the most minor of points. — Judaka

Then you'd be wrong. I have done that but it hasn't worked out.

You're unwilling to be challenged by others, gave up on challenging yourself, and will only defend yourself against any and all criticism. You're compelled by an argument you don't remember, and say you can do nothing about it. If I meet you where you are, I've accepted your position is hopeless.

I am meeting you exactly where you are, I'm just not accepting what you say as truth, because it's not the truth. I could debate you on solipsism, but I've seen your replies to others who attempted that. You gave short, dismissive replies, and I'd just get the same, it was obvious to me that you aren't going to be convinced the way you want to be. — Judaka

Again that is not true. I am willing to be challenged but so far nothing that has been said isn't something I haven't already done to myself.

You haven't even explained your position on solipsism and apparently refuse to do so, we need to undermine the quora post's argument instead, but without knowing it. Under these conditions, it's 100% impossible to change your mind there either, you seemingly demand that I choose only paths that necessarily result in you believing in solipsism, or else I'm not doing what you want. You also refuse to challenge any of your interpretations or characterisations surrounding solipsism, you don't see how that makes progress impossible?

Well fine, I hope some months down the line, you try to challenge yourself again and explore new methods until you find success. If you actually give me your position on solipsism I'll respond, I'm sure it's trash and can be debunked easily, considering it's completely illogical to be devoted to concepts like truth and reality, while also believing the universe exists in your mind. Otherwise, good luck to you, I hope find the courage to try again somewhere down the line. — Judaka

Again I'm trying each day. But so far all you have done is say challenge yourself, which means nothing. You call it nonsense but that doesn't work. Doesn't help when I see some people take it seriously like this:

https://vernonpress.com/file/7502/e19b0d05052691e5d1fa06f3a2939a5f/1543562412.pdf

Which does explain it.

Solipsism as I see it is that I am alone. There is no external world, other people don't exist and are just figments of my mind with no real emotions. There wouldn't be anything to do or achieve because it would just be me, alone with no one else to recognize me. There would be no point in living in such a reality.

I already explained why I can't find the post on Quora.

Your paths so far suck, to be blunt. One of them is saying find stuff against it with the most confirmation bias. But confirmation bias is a bad thing, something you want to avoid doing. Proposing it as a solution leaves me wondering when it is ok to do it and when not to, especially since it's generally considered a flaw.

I fight this each day but nothing seems to work against it and I don't know how much longer I can keep it up.

Forgot to add this too:

http://bc.upjp2.edu.pl/Content/5621/35_PDFsam_Całość%20ze%20znakiem%20wodnym3.pdf

The thread with the argument for solipsism is broken for me. Just copy the text here.

Solipsism can be proven to be true and it also results in unavoidable contradition. Basically the end conclusion is that either I am the only thing that exists OR the world is contradictory, in case I assume the opposite.

In short, the proof involves the fact that

I know I exist because I have a first person point of view in my world
Other things have a third person point of view in my world
Things are not both first person and third person point of view at the same time in my world
Hence, only I have first person point of view in my world.
If other things had first person point of view in my world, then they would be me
Since other things don’t have first person point of view in my world, they are not me
Only I have first person point of view in my world, because that is who I am.
Now, we established that only I have first person point of view in my world. So there is only one “me” in my world. Now let’s go into how many worlds are there?

Each person has the first person point of view in their world
There are a bunch of worlds out there
I know that I am in world number 234, because that’s where the first person point of view is
That means the first person point of view is not in other worlds
Hence, other worlds don’t have a “me”
Hence, in whole reality there is only one first person point of view, which is me
Other things do not have first person point of view
Point 14. proves solipsism to be true OBJECTIVELY. Let’s see a contradition

Let’s say other worlds also had first person point of view
This implies which world I live in is unspecified, because there is not enough information available
I know that I am in world number 234, because I exist in that world
Hence, the information to tell me which world I am in cannot remain unspecified, it must exist
Hence, point 16 and 18 are contradictions.
It is the existance of the first person point of view itself that tells me which world I live in. If there are multiple first person point if views in multiple words, then my world could not be determined for me, to know that I exist in that specific world. Since I clearly know that I exist in which world, this information cannot remains ambigous or unspecified. In order to make the information specific, there can only be one such information, which means one first person point of view can only exist in the entire universe, not just in my world. Q. e. d

This also implies that

If there is a subjective world, there can only be one such subjective world
Multiple subjective worlds coexisting leads to a contradiction in any one subjective world
There is at least one subjective world, because I exist in such
My world is not contradictory
Hence, it’s only I that exist

posted but my concern is with the two recent links like the math one right above you. Or the one from Vernon press.

This is the math one:

http://bc.upjp2.edu.pl/Content/5621/35_PDFsam_Ca%C5%82o%C5%9B%C4%87%20ze%20znakiem%20wodnym3.pdf

Where I think he proves it mathematically.

Actually reading that last one on the math reads like he just demonstrated that if someone believes it that there is nothing you can say to convince them otherwise.

I would suggest the Cavell essay on other minds that I attached above, but I will review the post, thank you.

At this point more philosophy I feel would just make things worse. That math one did a number on me and philosophy is what got me into this mess.

Honestly I feel like the less of this I do the better. Hopefully I can just forget about it.

I would suggest looking at the math one. You say to do confirmation bias but I like to cover my bases when dismissing something to make sure I didn't miss anything.

To quote the math one:

Any axiomatic theory and set of axioms for that theory in the non‑
solipsistic language can be carried over into the solipsistic language
as a theory with corresponding axioms, provided that the latter
theory is strict. Importantly, it is easy to argue – see the reply to
the third interpretation of the Private Language Argument – that
basic mathematical theories are all strict. Hence, a solipsist can
avail herself of, say, Peano/Dedekind Arithmetic together with its
familiar set of axioms

The only way out is through. If you read that one and don't get anything meaningful from it, I'll eat my hat. Plus, you haven't commented on any of my posts I worked very hard on for your benefit, so you owe me that much.

The reason I recommend confirmation bias is that I evaluate perspectives by what they produce, I do not recommend using "truth" and logic as measuring sticks for the value of a perspective. By your account, your belief in solipsism is making you miserable, for me, that is all I need to hear to judge your belief. If your belief is based on truth, is logical, and causes you to be miserable, then it is garbage. I thought you might be closer to agreeing with this, since you made a thread, looking for solipsism to be wrong, but instead, you present yourself as a slave to truth, you're trapped by solipsism being true and you only wish it wasn't.

What did you gain by being "correct" about solipsism? What's so good about your refusal to use confirmation bias to stop being "correct" about solipsism? Who decided it was good? If solipsism was the truth, but believing it made me miserable, I would use dishonest thinking to disprove it, so I could be happy. It makes no sense to me why you've got such a loyalty to truth.

That being said... many of my own views are dangerously close to solipsism, only, it does not cause any sadness in me. I too see no merit in accomplishing anything in this world, I don't think anything has any value beyond what a person asserts, and I self-describe as a nihilist. Unlike you, I start with where I want to be, such as, I want to be happy and confident, and I build my perspective to achieve that. You say "only stupid people believe what makes them happy", and I'm shocked, a solipsist who regards truth as the highest good? As a solipsist, you're attacking the very heart of truth, how can you then regard confirmation bias as wrong? It baffles me.

Your "math one" is aiming to prove a consistent internal logic to solipsism.

2. More generally, there can be no deductive refutation of this solipsism
employing only premises a committed solipsist would accept: all logically
correct derivations from solipsistically true premises lead to conclusions
that are solipsistically true as well. Any route to a successful refutation of
solipsism must travel via nondeductive inferential paths

That might well be right, but then, the author would likely then agree, that by employing premises that a committed solipsist wouldn't accept, solipsism mightn't survive. I am not arguing that solipsism can't have a consistent and valid logic to it. Even if solipsism contains irrefutable premises that necessarily lead to the stated conclusion, even that wouldn't be enough. One could simply argue that another set of premises is more important, and more crucial to look at, or simply by insisting that some premise has been ignored and must be considered.

Anyway, I don't know why I bothered to respond, I didn't ask you to send me some arguments you googled or whatever. I wanted to hear it explained in your own words. Why is a solipsist even giving me the arguments of others... The ones you think aren't real? Your entire position is so all over the place.

I'm convinced now, you didn't come to be a solipsist by introspection, it's something else. I'm called a solipsist because I attack the concepts of truth and reality, I emphasise the importance of the perception of the individual. And they talk about reality, truth, and logic and scoff at me for daring to think these concepts unimportant. You're a solipsist who prizes truth above all else, who proclaims things "objectively true", who prides himself on thinking in a way best suited to arriving at truth, and who detests ways of thinking that lead to inaccuracies. That is the exact opposite of solipsism, this is someone who has absolute faith in the foundations of reality and embraces and believes in a standard set of epistemological tools.

No offence, but I think others have hit this on the head, this is the result of some obsession of yours, it is not a logically consistent system of thought. I see a complete disconnect between how you think and what you value, and how that can conclude in solipsism. The only thing I can think of is that for some reason, you've been mesmerised by the idea and you're stuck. I realise that you won't accept that answer and that it's not an answer appropriate to a debate, but it's what I think all the same.

I'm not interested in going through a 50-page essay and reporting to you about it, as much as you hate confirmation bias, if I'm right, then you are looking for essays like this that prove solipsism. I doubt the essay even represents your opinion, it is what you searched for to justify your conclusion. Everything about the way you've conducted yourself on this thread is telling me that you are not going to change your mind on this.

Maybe you'll remember my words someday and make them work for you, maybe not of course, but it's clear to me that you're not ready to change right now. That I'm far from the first to conclude and thus shouldn't be overlooked, I imagine most posters will end up thinking the same as me if they don't already.

I know I exist because I have a first person point of view in my world
Other things have a third person point of view in my world
Things are not both first person and third person point of view at the same time in my world — Darkneos

In saying the skeptic and the other are not in the skeptic's world together, is to say that the skeptic does not know whether the other is them (the skeptic), or whether the other's point of view is the same, say, their pain is just like the skeptic's, so that they would exist, based on the ground that the skeptic takes themselves to.

Given that doubt, that lack of certain knowledge about the other, "there is only one 'me' in my world." From that requirement for the existence of the other, there is no stopping the conclusion that follows.

the first person point of view is not in other worlds
Hence, other worlds don’t have a “me” — Darkneos

The converse of not having knowledge of the other, is that I cannot explain myself to anyone either. I am inexpressible; no one can know me--no world has whatever is unique to me fully out of me, in it.

If there is a subjective world, there can only be one such subjective world — Darkneos

Thus, if there is to be a me, a me that I am certain of, then no one can have the ability to see me, to know me in the same way I want to be sure of myself. So the other cannot exist, as they threaten the grounds of my existence because they may know me better than I know myself, and then what do I know if not even myself?

I know I exist because I have a first person point of view in my world
Other things have a third person point of view in my world
Things are not both first person and third person point of view at the same time in my world
Hence, only I have first person point of view in my world.
If other things had first person point of view in my world, then they would be me
Since other things don’t have first person point of view in my world, they are not me
Only I have first person point of view in my world, because that is who I am.
Now, we established that only I have first person point of view in my world. So there is only one “me” in my world. Now let’s go into how many worlds are there? — Darkneos

This is a long boring way of supporting 'I think therefore I am.'

Each person has the first person point of view in their world
There are a bunch of worlds out there
I know that I am in world number 234, because that’s where the first person point of view is
That means the first person point of view is not in other worlds
Hence, other worlds don’t have a “me”
Hence, in whole reality there is only one first person point of view, which is me
Other things do not have first person point of view
Point 14. proves solipsism to be true OBJECTIVELY. Let’s see a contradition — Darkneos

Point one means nothing. What 'worlds' is Mr Barmadosa referring to, other planets? other people?
If its other people, then this point disputes solipsism.
World number 234 is just an arbitrary BS proposal.
The first person point of view is just 'I think therefore I am,' and Mr Barmadosa offers no proof of the existence of his notion of 'other worlds' nor does he explain what this notion is supposed to represent.
What does he mean by 'whole reality?' The whole of reality CAN include other minds. He in no way PROVES that this is no possible, so this is not sound logic. The whole of reality DOES NOT SUGGEST that only one mind source CAN exist.
Point 14, in no way PROVES solipsism, These 14 points are riddled with pure speculation and flawed assumptions. The propositional logic it offers is almost childishly poor.

Let’s say other worlds also had first person point of view
This implies which world I live in is unspecified, because there is not enough information available — Darkneos

This is total crap! It ignores these equally valid statements:
Let’s say this world has currently around 8 billion first person point of views (ignoring non-human fauna.)
This implies the world I live in is clearly specified, because there is compelling information.

I know that I am in world number 234, because I exist in that world — Darkneos

Random BS presupposition.

Hence, the information to tell me which world I am in cannot remain unspecified, it must exist
Hence, point 16 and 18 are contradictions. — Darkneos

A poor projection of a flawed statement.
The information available, clearly DOES specify that Mr Barmadosa is in a world of (currently) 8 billion 'I think therefore I am,' minds. I can only assume you are easily duped!

It is the existance of the first person point of view itself that tells me which world I live in. — Darkneos

Yeah number 234! :lol: :rofl:
In what way does the above statement PROVE that other 'first person point of view's,' cannot also exist in world number 234? OR that Mr Barmadosa's notion of other 'worlds,' actually refers to the existence of other minds and in fact, disputes solipsism.

If there are multiple first person point if views in multiple words, then my world could not be determined for me, to know that I exist in that specific world. — Darkneos

But, it is just as valid to state:
If there are multiple first person points of view in ONE world, then my world CAN BE determined and Mr Barmadosa CAN ACCEPT that he exists in that single world.

Since I clearly know that I exist in which world, this information cannot remains ambigous or unspecified. In order to make the information specific, there can only be one such information, which means one first person point of view can only exist in the entire universe, not just in my world. Q. e. d — Darkneos

The first sentence here makes no sense, as it has too many English language errors.
The second sentence does not follow in any way whatsoever, as all the points made in this Quora post are subjective and are easily challenged. QED my arse!!

If there is a subjective world, there can only be one such subjective world
Multiple subjective worlds coexisting leads to a contradiction in any one subjective world
There is at least one subjective world, because I exist in such
My world is not contradictory
Hence, it’s only I that exist — Darkneos

The first sentence is pure speculation, and equalled by 'If there is NO subjective world.'
The second sentence invokes the observation that;
One subjection or multiple subjections are all just subjections.
It's like religions, there are many of them and they all contradict each other, on many points, so they cannot all be true! BUT, they could all be false.
The third sentence is valid but does not PROVE that ONLY he exists in that world.
His world is 'not contradictory,' due to the existence of billions of other independent minds, existing in it, along with him. Hence this is not proof that it is only him, that exists.

Seriously, this utter tosh makes you think that only YOU exist!!!
So under solipsism, Mr Barmabosa is actually an aspect of you? and so am I, who thinks Mr Barmabosa is very confused, and totally wrong, which means that you think YOU are totally correct and totally wrong about the exact same point, at the same moment in time! :rofl:
Mathematically, that would mean that in your single existent world, you believe x is true and false at the exact same moment in time. This shows how bad your logic is here, as the logic law of non-contradiction is fundamental in propositional logic.

I read that post on other minds and I couldn’t understand it.

But in my case the way out isn’t through. Every thing I’ve read just seems to erode my mind a little more each day. Like with the math one saying that any axioms one takes can be adopted by the solipsist while also saying that premises that are solipsistically true lead to solipsism.

So it’s more or less saying everything leads to solipsism.

I'm convinced now, you didn't come to be a solipsist by introspection, it's something else. I'm called a solipsist because I attack the concepts of truth and reality, I emphasise the importance of the perception of the individual. And they talk about reality, truth, and logic and scoff at me for daring to think these concepts unimportant. You're a solipsist who prizes truth above all else, who proclaims things "objectively true", who prides himself on thinking in a way best suited to arriving at truth, and who detests ways of thinking that lead to inaccuracies. That is the exact opposite of solipsism, this is someone who has absolute faith in the foundations of reality and embraces and believes in a standard set of epistemological tools.

No offence, but I think others have hit this on the head, this is the result of some obsession of yours, it is not a logically consistent system of thought. I see a complete disconnect between how you think and what you value, and how that can conclude in solipsism. The only thing I can think of is that for some reason, you've been mesmerised by the idea and you're stuck. I realise that you won't accept that answer and that it's not an answer appropriate to a debate, but it's what I think all the same. — Judaka

I’m not a solipsist otherwise I wouldn’t be talking to other people and asking for their advice. I want to move past it but I want to make sure I’m not missing anything that could be used against me. I want to be happy but so far trying to ignore this, forget about it, or argue against it hasn’t worked out. I wish it did so I can just move on with my life. I want to be happy.

I know I’m stuck and I don’t know how to get unstuck. I’m also scared by the thought that it might be true and just imagining myself acting like it’s not true while knowing it is.

I'm not interested in going through a 50-page essay and reporting to you about it, as much as you hate confirmation bias, if I'm right, then you are looking for essays like this that prove solipsism. I doubt the essay even represents your opinion, it is what you searched for to justify your conclusion. Everything about the way you've conducted yourself on this thread is telling me that you are not going to change your mind on this.

Maybe you'll remember my words someday and make them work for you, maybe not of course, but it's clear to me that you're not ready to change right now. That I'm far from the first to conclude and thus shouldn't be overlooked, I imagine most posters will end up thinking the same as me if they don't already. — Judaka

You’d have to check it. I’m willing to change my mind and I want to, if you think otherwise then you haven’t been reading this thread. I want nothing more than to forget about all of this and move on with my life. My opinion is that it’s not true and I don’t believe it so.

But I can’t get over it on my own and I need others to tell me if these people are right or not. I’m not trying to justify any conclusion, I want it to be wrong so I’m seeking out anything that could be used against me and striking it down so that nothing could ever again possibly lead me back here.

That wasn’t me that was a Quora user and I’ll admit even I could see that his argument was literally nothing more than just a string of assertions that he can’t prove.

I’m wondering what you think of the math one.

Please, I want nothing more in my life than to just forget everything I saw about solipsism and to just be happy.

It’s why I need help with the math link, after that I can let it all go and just move on with my life never having to think about it again.

Every thing I’ve read just seems to erode my mind a little more each day — Darkneos

You’re just reading the wrong works. I appreciate the effort in reading the Cavell. Where did you stop understanding it? If you can work to formulate questions, I can probably answer them (no one understands meaningful philosophy at first glance; its process requires your becoming someone different). The most important part is the end where he finds the truth of skepticism (that solipsism is real and an ongoing threat) and then analyzing the uses of knowledge to find the route of acknowledgement as our human relation towards others (apart from insisting on knowledge of them that is certain). I stand ready to help if you are willing to put in the work, but, yes, stop reading anything that is attempting to dismiss or disprove solipsism (and ignore @Judaka and @green flag tell you you’re crazy or that the position is ridiculous) as it is a important part of the human condition.

Please, I want nothing more in my life than to just forget everything I saw about solipsism and to just be happy.

It’s why I need help with the math link, after that I can let it all go and just move on with my life never having to think about it again. — Darkneos

@jgill is the main maths guy on TPF, imo. He might look at it for you but Its a big ask, as its a big doc.

I just REALLY need help with that one, and then after that I can just forget about it. Throw it all away and never look back.

I'm tired of waking up everyday feeling like this and having these thoughts. I just want to be happy.

My "work" doesn't amount to much as a lot of philosophy just goes over my head with the arguments and writings. It's why when read that I couldn't really make much sense of it. I don't know if it's the way philosophers write or stuff like that but I often need others to explain it for me because I just can't...I've tried but it doesn't click. It's why I post on here.

I just want to know if the links I give prove it or not (and I'm REALLY hoping they don't) and if they don't, truly don't then I'm done with it. No more googling, no more, just...no. I want to be happy and live the rest of my days in peace and not stressing over this stuff.

That's why I left the math link and the one from Vernon Press. And I know it's a huge ask but it's why I often post this stuff for others to take a look because I don't really get it and knowing how my mind works it would just do more harm than good.

But I greatly appreciate the help with this and the links. It means more than you can know.

I just REALLY need help with that one, and then after that I can just forget about it. Throw it all away and never look back. — Darkneos

Well, if @jgill cant help, then perhaps there is another on TPF with high maths credentials, who would have a look at the link.

I just want to know if the links I give prove it or not — Darkneos

What I’m telling you is, yes, what leads to the conclusion of solipsism is true about our human condition. But having certainty that others exist, knowing that, is not the only consequence of the truth of the skepticism that leads to solipsism, as knowledge of the other and the world is not our only connection.

And you will not forget about this because your isolation and doubt and disconnection are based on something true. The danger of philosophy is why Socrates was killed, why Descartes’ Meditations was not taught to young adults, and why Wittgenstein kept telling people to give up on philosophy after his conclusions in the Tractatus. It is too late for you , however, so I would use your mind to overcome your mind.

What I’m telling you is, yes, what leads to the conclusion of solipsism is true about our human condition. But having certainty that others exist, knowing that, is not the only consequence of the truth of the skepticism that leads to solipsism, as knowledge of the other and the world is not our only connection. — Antony Nickles

I'm not sure what you mean by that exactly.

And you will not forget about this because your isolation and doubt and disconnection are based on something true. The danger of philosophy is why Socrates was killed, why Descartes’ Meditations was not taught to young adults, and why Wittgenstein kept telling people to give up on philosophy after his conclusions in the Tractatus. It is too late for you , however, so I would use your mind to overcome your mind. — Antony Nickles

That doesn't help much but I think I can forget about it as long as I stop feeding it and focus on other stuff, or at least see a therapist about it. Some comments are right, this is an obsession and I have a tendency to obsesses a lot over stuff (I think that comes with being on the spectrum).

Do I just message them or something like that?

I'm not sure what you mean by that exactly. — Darkneos

The way this would work is that you ask a question about which part or parts you don't understand, or, even better, you take a stab at echoing or paraphrasing what you think was said, or you assume you know what was said and disagree, stating your objections.

I think I can forget about it as long as I stop feeding it and focus on other stuff, or at least see a therapist about it. — Darkneos

A therapist is not going to help you with a philosophical problem like solipsism, though they can help with reasons for turning our human condition of being separate from others into an intellectual problem where we think we are lacking some knowledge. I would suggest both, especially given that you will come back to it again and again, but I t doesn't sound like you are ready to work on the philosophy yet. I ask that you not post here again unless you are serious, as you must realize you've wasted the time of earnest people actually trying to do philosophy here. If you continue in this vein, I will ask that you be banned until you can convince the admins of your sincerity in wanting to do the work. Good luck.