It’s actually debilitating because my metric for what’s true has nothing to do with content or utility and everything to do with ego.

It’s the only reason I would hold on to something that hurts me, because letting go is weakness.

It’s a long standing issue I have where I can’t disagree with something someone says because I don’t have an alternative to what it could be, either that or they don’t admit they’re wrong.

So whenever I try to move on from what people say that I don’t agree with in my mind it’s like I’m denying truth to be comfortable. I associate the pain something brings me with truth, which is stupid. But I can’t stop it and it’s led to a lot of suffering in my life because believing something because it’s beneficial, helpful, or soothing to be is running from truth, lying to yourself, being stupid, insert terrible thing about you.

And I guess by extension I attribute being happy or at peace with lying to yourself (or insert bad thing). So I’m stressed 24/7 believing things that cause me pain because to let them go is to lose, or be willfully ignorant, loser, etc.

That’s what I mean.

Every time I email him in response to it his replies don’t really explain it:

I was wanting to emphasize that we are more than that-much more-not just what we perceive

If his goal is to say we are more than that he failed quite miserably at it. Though looking through his articles on psychologyToday I’m a bit skeptical of him.

Not to mention nothing he cites in there would really prove his point either. It’s weird now that I reflect on him. Didn’t help each time I ask him for clarity I get nothing in terms of a solid answer

Oh?

I guess that makes sense. Personally though even though I know it's mistaken or nonsense I can't let it go because it feels like denying the truth.

I mean that's what my instincts thought when I read it, usually trying to mix science with spiritualism and philosophy turns out badly, and I knew enough about BUddhism to know this guy doesn't understand Maya or illusion at all. It doesn't mean not real in BUddhism, it's more complicated than that.

BUt I guess I believed him because he graduated top honors and won awards like it mentions in the link:

https://www.health.harvard.edu/authors/srini-pillay-md

That's not actually what it was about...

Well judging from his reply to me I don't think even he really knows what he's talking about, not truly from everyone else I've asked about this:

I think this paradox holds true.

While we are connected to the form of our bodies, there are things we can do to change this. Yet, as we connect more deeply with what the body is,
we recognize that we are really more than just the way we appear through our sense organs.

Thanks.

This is from the guy in the first link, the quote in my OP is from a Quora user but you have to have a plus subscription to read it, which i think is nonsense.

I think the "new age wisdom" part detracts from his point rather than enables it. Just because new age wisdom thinks so doesn't make it true, and I agree. A lot of things in new age wisdom is...well nonsense. Top that off with wishy washy interpretations of science (especially quantum physics) and well...

Not to mention I asked and the Buddhists I talked to say he misunderstands what is meant by Maya in Buddhism, which doesn't surprise me.

But his "evidence" isn't really proof of his point either. It's more like he just interprets it to mean that this is an illusion. The part about us being mostly water is iffy. Sure we are mostly water but call it a bag of water is way too reductive. Like Ice is water frozen solid, the water in our bodies is a part of everything else in us that leads to things being solid.

It's hard to believe he's highly regarded when he makes wacky takes like this: https://www.health.harvard.edu/authors/srini-pillay-md

I mean in a way that can be understood. 5 dollar words made that unintelligible.

English?

It's not me saying that I'm just asking if that view is valid.

I personally am leaning towards no, because if there's one thing I've learned is that existence is complicated.

Nope. It’s impossible because there is no way to get outside of your perception. Ironically getting outside your perception would disprove it immediately. So in order to test or prove it it would have to be wrong.

There is no other angle. Sometimes people trying to make a distinction can't see the forest for the trees. Like when you break it down there is no distinction between metaphysical solipsism or epistemological.

I don't see what there is to be confused about. There is no real difference between metaphysical or epistemological solipsism, it's just splitting hairs when it's ultimately the same thing it's talking about.

But the more you think about it the more of a nothingburger it is. I mean you can't test it, you can't even know, or feel the difference if there even is one, and if there was you'd never know since all you have is your perception so you can't validate it. You'd have to be able to get outside of your perception to do so but that would be invalidating solipsism as soon as you do. So.........................................................

I don't know. I just thinking about it I have to wonder why even think about it?

I don't it just honestly sounds like splitting hairs to be honest since it's not knowing if there is anything else but you. Though that would raise the question about why are you even talking to other people or posting on the internet. The response they get is "they're going along, they're playing the game" which is just absurd, honestly.

Yeah but that's not what we're talking about.

Seems like same thing as far as solipsism goes.

They can’t. You can’t refute god, simulation, etc, or anything metaphysical really. There’s no way to really test it, just like you can’t prove solipsism.

There’s a set of assumptions you have to make about the world, without which you can’t do any thing. Even solipsism assumes the subject or mind exists, well that and a lot of other things like assuming the area around them isn’t real, that other people don’t have minds. It assumes too much that it breaks Occam’s razor

Except you can’t be sure of the existence of your own mind. Hence another argument based on nonsense.

You write that "and to be frank we can't be sure of anything", but that is exactly the metric to make the jump to epistemological solipsism.

Your position that "we can't be sure of anything" is the point of epistemological solipsism.

Wrong again bud. Can’t be sure of anything just leaves you stuck then. You can’t be sure you exist or your mind, you don’t jump to solipsism from there. YOU CAN’T. At least not without leaps of faith like any other philosophy.

The position of “not be sure of anything” isn’t the point of epistemological solipsism (which let’s face it is just splitting hairs from metaphysical solipsism). Solipsists are at lest sure they and their mind exist, and yet have no basis for thinking so. They just assume that to be the case.

So still not correct there.

how is it moot, the guy tried to prove solipsism.

I still want to know about my orignal post though

Well the Video I linked to aruges how you can't even know if you're thikning or if there is a you.

SO while it appears to be skepticism it's really just fantasy it's doing.

Not making and checking unfounded (which is already a red flag as what is considered unfounded is debatable) assumptions while in the process using unfounded assumptions.

They don’t even know if they’re thinking or if they exist, both of which are unfounded:

https://youtu.be/SRwMFjCoOUc

It's actually skepticism's greatest failure, since in trying to winnow it down to what can be known for certain ends up making a TON of other assumptions in the process to get there to the point where it gets absurd. It would in fact be less skeptical to assume an external reality.

Again solipsism fails Occams Razor.

Not true, those facts don’t matter philosophically, it’s all in the present and all these things are happening outside your mind as you’re taking things in (by your admission). You would have to prove your mind is the maker and receiver of these stimuli and I know you can’t, nor can anyone.

But again as stated you can’t be sure of your mind in the present let alone “you”. The fact you’re using leaned language that you got outside you is enough to blow that claim away. Try making any argument without language let alone the concepts to argue for solipsism, you can’t.

The past does exist, just not in the way you think. The present is also not an inference either. It exists apart from you. The only way for your argument to make any sense is to axiomatically claim that your mind and you don’t need a cause, and at that point you’ve already lost as that would violate Occam’s razor. Why assume you and your mind are cause less when it’s more logical to go with realism or the default view.

There really is no logic that can reasonably jump to solipsism. Just because we can’t be “sure” (and to be frank we can’t be sure of anything so that’s not a metric to use) doesn’t mean it’s all in your head or you’re the only conscious thing. That’s not what explains our observations so it doesn’t logically follow.

Like I said, faulty premises that assume too many things they can’t prove.

To repeat, arguments for solipsism eventually boil down to nonsense. And it’s why it’s pure faith, nothing more.

That doesn’t even follow…

Like I said, pro solipsism arguments are nonsense.

That and this reply under it:

Solipsism is not a choice, human beings or a human being is even in strict scientific terms a subjective entity, a subject, everything that happens to me is in my own subjective bubble. But, this is not where i see where the problem is at. The problem comes when, if you even come to the realization that solipsism is true, and that no event can exist without you consciously being subjectively aware of it, why would a solipsist or any person, put himself inside a simulated reality that basically restricts him in his wishes, fantasies, and absolute freedom. If you are infact first and foremost, outside of the simulated reality and have absolute freedom to do with yourself whatever you want, restricting yourself to a simulation even if it is self imposed, inside one’s own mind is really hard to understand. Because you would basically go into a span of about 80 years, experiencing even suffering, physical or psychological, being restricted in what you can do, example, no absolute control or freedom over matter, or the mind-matter relationship, i agree that it is hard to understand subjectivity and its logic that way. But, still, that does not negate solipsism. Because you also get to experience amazing beautiful things and extend your freedom further to the point of physical liberation or end which results in death, but you only end your own mind simulation. The whole process of solipsism is that every minute, date, month, year and second is a carefully planned event that must ultimately lead to absolute freedom, that is the end point of solipsism, to be able to do whatever you want, and without your subjectivity in that state ever ending.

As for denying any simulation hypothesis from the soul to mind to computer does not cause someone to doubt what is real, compared to direct realism then perhaps Plato and Decartes are not as adept as you. — introbert

There's no reason to take it seriously. Unless they can demonstrate said alternate reality it's junk. Even then it wouldn't make this less real. You'd just have two realities. I mean alternate realities are a common trope in media today, even cartoons do it, so I don't see why it would make you question anything. Seems interesting rather than scary.

Technically it is not considered a "mental disorder" but it is part of diagnostic criteria like introversion, nihilism, antagonism, paranoia etc. That it is not a "mental disorder" doesn't negate it as mental disorder. Someone would hold their semantic ground that a mental disorder is the name of the phenomenon, but if someone can be diagnosed 'schizo' for being antagonistic, nihilistic, introverted and having solipsistic delusion it is mental disorder. — introbert

You're getting off track...again. It's far from my original post.

simulation hypothesis doesn’t cause us to question what is real. It’s an assertion with nothing to prove it, ergo junk.

Plus unless you can show a clear difference between a simulation and the real thing then they’re the same and the point is null.

Solipsism isn’t a mental disorder either. Again you are inventing things to make it other than it is.

I don’t I’m well aware of his position and how he’s wrong given modern science discoveries. There is a reason idealism fell out, part of it being that it always leads to solipsism, ie “you’re all that exists”. He could only get around that by asserting some god mind which isn’t convincing.

Faulty premises. Also the word illusion is doing a lot of heavy lifting as the only way illusion holds any sort of weight is if you know what’s reality, which under solipsism you could never do.

Also everything you are perceiving is in the now. Not the past. Even a memory of the past is still in the now. You aren’t imagining a fictional account either but the real thing.

Without any reality as a comparison the word “illusion is meaningless”. Solipsism ASSUMES one’s own mind is sure to exist. While in the process using words, concepts, etc that originate outside of the mind. Solipsism fails to prove the existence is a mind that it assumes to know for sure exists.

None of your points follow either and they assume too much, much like my original post guy did in his link.

Like I said before all arguments for it boil to nonsense since you have to deny solipsism to prove it and rely on things outside of it.

It's not a convention, it's what solipsism IS. Period. Stop making it other than what it is, it's not working and getting off track.

Not to mention all this got way off track from my original post about whether the argument followed or was just nonsense.

It's not, you're just trying to patch it up to be something other than what it really is.

Like people said about my first post with that proof, it's nonsense.

You didn't. None of your logic followed.

I’m not holding it to any sort of standard that is what it is not matter how you dress it up to sound even a little cogent.

It’s just another unprovable and untestable claim just like simulation

That's the insanity of trying to prove it, on top of it being unprovable of course.

It's metaphysical solipsism not the "how can we know" one, because we really can't. WE can't even know if we exist, like I said.

Berkley can argue against and unobserved and unimagined tree all he wants it doesn't make it any less real. It's also why idealism died out I guess and why we follow science. The "if I don't see it it didn't happen or isn't real" is one of the easiest things to disprove.

Everything else you said is irrelevant to the topic.

You are performing a reducio ad absurdum, taking solipsism to it's extreme conclusion to refute it. Indirect realism can be reduced to the absurd by taking it to solipsism. However, solipsism is like indirect reality, it is not completely of the mind, but it is a function of the body.

Pure solipsism is not a challenging philosophical exercise. You don't have to have any JTB about any of the things that you mention, they are merely objects of your creation that mean whatever you want them to. Everything that is, is possibly interpretable by an 'idea of reference' that relates to you. About you or against you. You immediately understand everything as if it orbits around you like a planet around the sun. Better yet, geocentric is more solipsistic than heliocentric.

Obviously some manifestations of solipsism can be deemed false/untrue/dysfunctional, but ultimately it has a power whether you call it will-to-power or something else, that is opposed to group-think, consensus, democracy, fascism, normativity, herd mentality, objectivity, collectivism, state-philosophy, psychiatry, etc. — introbert

Still wrong, again.

This is a key topic in the prevailing ethos of anti-schizophrenia. The first issue is that, of course, solipsism is a phenomenon of indirect realism. Indirect realism is not disproven by the solipsistic extreme that the mind originates all reality, neither is Idealism disproven by the existence of the physical realm. Solipsism is a verifiable fact of 'psychology'. Practical knowledge has been developed through the objectification of solipsism, such as 'theory of mind', therefore, through it's existence what is considered normal psychology has not been taken for granted, and some understanding has been developed of epistemology etc. Arguing solipsism is not true, is like arguing idealism is not true, but the difference is that idealism has developed in the modern by the rejection of manifest irrationalities that occur in nature. Solipsism is true because it resides in all of us, it is part of our bodily power, it can help us and it can hurt us. That it is most noticeable, made an object, through its problematic manifestation, and not really noticed when it is functional, arguing against it is an absurd and ironic rational idealism. Ironic, because one is using solipsism in making solipsism purely an idea your mind can deny, without acknowledging that there is a material basis for it outside your mind that is undeniable. This is like a transcendental idealism, but by trying to transcend solipsism, one confines idealism to rational (normative, deindividuating) thought. Ultimately a disempowering belief. This disempowerment, rejection of solipsist negation of other minds, turns one into a mindless extrovert. A mindless extrovert is a fascist, a mindless introvert (solipsist) is a homeless schizo. The Deleuzian concept can be interpreted that the schizo is an oppressed introvert (lone thinker) in a socius of extroversion (collective doers), is about a broader philosophical project that makes the anti-solipsist into a useful marionette, and the solipsist into a tangled mess of strings that only the most powerful can unravel. — introbert

Not true at all. It's not true just because it resides in all of us. And it definitely isn't a verifiable act of psychology (which suggests the opposite).

Not to mention not of your logic follows or makes any sense.