The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by -1- » Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:36 am

Viveka wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:46 am
Then you have the wrong definition of solipsism.
Actually, i researched the definition of solipsism before I dared to venture out and state that definition.

I found seven definitions, and six out of seven said solipsism is the idea that only the mind can be proven to exist. One definition said that solipsism is the philosophical notion that only one's own mind is the only thing that exists, or one's on mind is the only thing that can be proven to exist.

So there. It's not a matter of opinions of what solipsism means, it is a matter of definition established by thought, and established by agreement over history by great minds.

Of course, Viveka, you can make up your own definition of solipsism, but then call it something else, like "Viveka's own brand of solipsism" or something.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by -1- » Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:39 am

Impenitent wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:21 am
-1- wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:38 am
Impenitent wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:57 am


why not? that is an awfully high demand on something you can't prove to even exist...

but all purple dragons must have green horns... (except for the polka dotted ones, but I digress...)

-Imp
Impish.

I believe they can't be proven to exist. Why, you ask. Why can't they be proven to exist.

Well, you prove they exist, and you proved me wrong. Simple enough task. Go do it.
that's not what I said.

your claim was "I also believe that a mind can't have any different perspective."

I replied "why not? that is an awfully high demand on something you can't prove to even exist..."

point being, why can you make existential demands on that which you believe cannot be proven to exist?

-Imp
I am sorry if I answered the wrong question.

It is a matter of improper / inaccurate / imprecise referencing by you.

You put two sections in colour, and you raised questions about one of them, but you did not say which one. So I had to guess. If you don't want me to guess, then please be more precise what you are referncing. Or else, better still, please write down long hand in a concise and comprehensible fashion what you mean.

Thanks.

Impenitent
Posts: 1669
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by Impenitent » Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:26 pm

and the question remains unanswered

-Imp

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by -1- » Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:18 am

Impenitent wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:26 pm
and the question remains unanswered

-Imp
Don't be too surprised. If you can't ask a question in an intelligible form, you won't get an answer (unless by random chance).

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by Conde Lucanor » Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:03 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:36 am
Viveka wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:46 am
Then you have the wrong definition of solipsism.
Actually, i researched the definition of solipsism before I dared to venture out and state that definition.

I found seven definitions, and six out of seven said solipsism is the idea that only the mind can be proven to exist.
The key question is: proven to whom?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by -1- » Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:23 pm

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:03 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:36 am
Viveka wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:46 am
Then you have the wrong definition of solipsism.
Actually, i researched the definition of solipsism before I dared to venture out and state that definition.

I found seven definitions, and six out of seven said solipsism is the idea that only the mind can be proven to exist.
The key question is: proven to whom?
To the mind, of course. And to things outside the mind which are capable of comprehension. The mind needs no proof of these things outside of itself; it is merely enough for the mind to know that it is available to those who may or may not be out there.

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by Conde Lucanor » Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:00 pm

-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:23 pm
To the mind, of course. And to things outside the mind which are capable of comprehension. The mind needs no proof of these things outside of itself; it is merely enough for the mind to know that it is available to those who may or may not be out there.
So, what you're saying is that a solipsist (John Doe) that believes that his mind is the only thing that can be proven to exist will try to prove to another mind (Mary Jane, which he doubts that exists) that John Doe's mind exists, even though he believes that Mary Jane cannot prove to herself nothing but that only Mary Jane's mind exists?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by -1- » Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:12 pm

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:00 pm
So, what you're saying is that a solipsist (John Doe) that believes that his mind is the only thing that can be proven to exist will try to prove to another mind (Mary Jane, which he doubts that exists) that John Doe's mind exists, even though he believes that Mary Jane cannot prove to herself nothing but that only Mary Jane's mind exists?
Almost right, but you made two mistaken conclusions:
1. John Doe does not doubt that Mary Jane's mind exists. He just has no proof of it.
2. John Doe thinks that to him the only thing that is proven and can be proven is his own mind. It does not mean it is the only thing that can be proven, as you supposed in the first sentence. It means that to John Doe it is the only thing that can be proven.
3. John Doe will not try to prove to another mind that John Doe's mind exist. This is very important for you to conceptualize. John doe will try to explain to Mary Jane, or another mind, that from Mary Jane's perspective, the only thing that can be proven to exist is Mary Jane's mind.

Please read the above very carefully. It is extremely important that you don't extrapolate incorrectly from the meaning of "To John Doe, if he has a mind, the only thing that can be proven to him is that his mind exists." This is incredibly important to not make false conclusions from this.

One common false conclusion is that people think, that therefore to John Doe, the only being in the world is john doe and / or his mind. NO, he is not the only thing, and john doe does not have to believe that. He can only be proven that his mind exists, but it leaves the freedom of other things and other minds to exist, albeit unproven.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by -1- » Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:12 pm

Sorry, that's three mistaken conclusions, not two, as I stated in my previous post.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by -1- » Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:15 pm

Also, in two posts above, "can be proven" should be understood "can be proven of the physical, real world" in all instances.

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by Conde Lucanor » Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:07 pm

-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:12 pm

Almost right, but you made two mistaken conclusions:
Bear in mind that I'm not concluding anything, I'm just trying to understand the implied premises of what you're saying. That's why my post ended with a question mark.
-1- wrote: 1. John Doe does not doubt that Mary Jane's mind exists. He just has no proof of it.
So, what you're saying is that the solipsist John Doe is certain about two things: that Mary Jane (and her mind) exist and that he exists. By the same token, he must assume that Mary Jane is certain that the solipsist John Doe (and his mind) exist, as well as her own mind. Everyone knows that everyone else exists, even though some of them (the solipsists) believe they could not prove it to themselves, according to your view.
-1- wrote: 2. John Doe thinks that to him the only thing that is proven and can be proven is his own mind. It does not mean it is the only thing that can be proven, as you supposed in the first sentence. It means that to John Doe it is the only thing that can be proven.
You will have to explain what's for you the difference between proving to oneself about something and being certain about something. Because you have already established that solipsist John Doe is certain for himself about the existence of things independent of his mind. But how can he reach such certainty without convincing himself of it?
-1- wrote: 3. John Doe will not try to prove to another mind that John Doe's mind exist. This is very important for you to conceptualize. John doe will try to explain to Mary Jane, or another mind, that from Mary Jane's perspective, the only thing that can be proven to exist is Mary Jane's mind.
Why would he waste his time (and Mary's) trying to explain to Mary that her certainty of the existence of other minds independent of hers is unwarranted? In other words, John Doe will be explaining to Mary that she has no proof for herself that John Doe exists, even though he is certain that Mary is certain that John Doe exists. And isn't the explanation by John Doe an act of "proving" to someone else that nothing can be proven outside your own point of view? Isn't that a contradiction?
-1- wrote: Please read the above very carefully. It is extremely important that you don't extrapolate incorrectly from the meaning of "To John Doe, if he has a mind, the only thing that can be proven to him is that his mind exists." This is incredibly important to not make false conclusions from this.

One common false conclusion is that people think, that therefore to John Doe, the only being in the world is john doe and / or his mind. NO, he is not the only thing, and john doe does not have to believe that. He can only be proven that his mind exists, but it leaves the freedom of other things and other minds to exist, albeit unproven.
But despite "the freedom of other things and other minds to exist, albeit unproven", you established that for solipsist John, there can be no doubt (see point #1) that other things and other minds exist. In other words, they wouldn't be free to exist at all. That's what would be consistent with your statement that "John Doe does not doubt that Mary Jane's mind exists".

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by -1- » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:12 pm

Conde Lucanor:

I must have misinterpreted the meaning of "doubt" as you meant it.

Hence you are misinterpreting my statements.

This I can't fault you for. Maybe I ought to have asked you first what you mean by "doubt".

There are a number of misunderstandings still. Let me explain:

"John Doe does not doubt that Mary Jane exists, but he is not certain of it either."

I don't know; does this sentence make any sense? If not, then please erase all your thoughts that arose from my asserting that John Doe does not doubt that Mary Jane exists. I admit I have troubles understanding the meaning of the word "doubt". It is my shortcoming, and I fully admit to that.

So to make it sure:

John Doe is not certain that Mary Jany or her mind exists. But it is not considered impossible by him for Mary Jane or her mind to exist. (***Does this amount to doubt? I don't know.***)

Now, instead of carrying on with correcting the corrections, please ask your question again. The original question, and be not swayed by my incorrect explanation of "not doubting, but not certain either."

I want to start with a clean slate, as to not to confuse you, and for me not to get confused.

If you wouldn't mind asking your questions, better if you ask your original questions, and we'll go from there.

Please don't use the word "doubt". Please describe your thoughts without using the word "doubt". "Doubt" is a dubious word, I don't like it because it can have overlays of truth values when used in logic. It is a word of fuzzy logic. And here is why:

"I doubt that the teacher will come in today." This means it is possible that the teacher will come in today, but I am not sure. I make no claim whether the teacher will come in or the teacher won't come in. My idea is that there is a possibility that the teacher will come in, and that he or she won't come in.

"I doubt your intelligence." (As an example, not directed at anyone in this thread.) This means I deny you are intelligent. It is not a lack of certainty; it is a certainty expressed in a more-or-less polite way.

"I doubt that the judges will come down with a favourable decision for the defendant." Again, this is a nuanced way of saying that the speaker is sure that the judgement will be unfavourable to the defendant.

This is why I did not want to deal with the wording that said "doubt" in it. It has no clear, precise meaning, and for me to make a claim, I shan't be addressing questions that can be interpreted in more than one way.

Conde Lucanor, please don't refer to any of the posts we have made to each other. I did not want to deal with the word "doubt", but you thought that I was dealing with it. This is why you came up with a for me unacceptable conclusion, in which you said, "So, what you're saying is that the solipsist John Doe is certain about two things: that Mary Jane (and her mind) exist and that he exists." I did not say this, neither implied this; you concluded this due to the manifold meaning of the word "doubt".

So if you are still interested, read my much earlier post (I can't refer you to it now, I am in the middle of editing this post, I will refer you to it in the next post I make -- they unfortunately don't number posts on threads on this site).

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by -1- » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:16 pm

Dear Lucanor, please read my very first post on the previous page, on page 5 (five) of this thread, which is post no. 7. of all posts starting at the top.

Please familiarize yourself with it, and ask questions based on, or in response to, that post.

Thanks.

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by Conde Lucanor » Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:11 pm

-1- wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:12 pm
Conde Lucanor:

I must have misinterpreted the meaning of "doubt" as you meant it.

Hence you are misinterpreting my statements.

This I can't fault you for. Maybe I ought to have asked you first what you mean by "doubt".

There are a number of misunderstandings still. Let me explain:

"John Doe does not doubt that Mary Jane exists, but he is not certain of it either."

I don't know; does this sentence make any sense? If not, then please erase all your thoughts that arose from my asserting that John Doe does not doubt that Mary Jane exists. I admit I have troubles understanding the meaning of the word "doubt". It is my shortcoming, and I fully admit to that.

So to make it sure:

John Doe is not certain that Mary Jany or her mind exists. But it is not considered impossible by him for Mary Jane or her mind to exist. (***Does this amount to doubt? I don't know.***)

Now, instead of carrying on with correcting the corrections, please ask your question again. The original question, and be not swayed by my incorrect explanation of "not doubting, but not certain either."

I want to start with a clean slate, as to not to confuse you, and for me not to get confused.

If you wouldn't mind asking your questions, better if you ask your original questions, and we'll go from there.

Please don't use the word "doubt". Please describe your thoughts without using the word "doubt". "Doubt" is a dubious word, I don't like it because it can have overlays of truth values when used in logic. It is a word of fuzzy logic. And here is why:

"I doubt that the teacher will come in today." This means it is possible that the teacher will come in today, but I am not sure. I make no claim whether the teacher will come in or the teacher won't come in. My idea is that there is a possibility that the teacher will come in, and that he or she won't come in.

"I doubt your intelligence." (As an example, not directed at anyone in this thread.) This means I deny you are intelligent. It is not a lack of certainty; it is a certainty expressed in a more-or-less polite way.

"I doubt that the judges will come down with a favourable decision for the defendant." Again, this is a nuanced way of saying that the speaker is sure that the judgement will be unfavourable to the defendant.

This is why I did not want to deal with the wording that said "doubt" in it. It has no clear, precise meaning, and for me to make a claim, I shan't be addressing questions that can be interpreted in more than one way.

Conde Lucanor, please don't refer to any of the posts we have made to each other. I did not want to deal with the word "doubt", but you thought that I was dealing with it. This is why you came up with a for me unacceptable conclusion, in which you said, "So, what you're saying is that the solipsist John Doe is certain about two things: that Mary Jane (and her mind) exist and that he exists." I did not say this, neither implied this; you concluded this due to the manifold meaning of the word "doubt".

So if you are still interested, read my much earlier post (I can't refer you to it now, I am in the middle of editing this post, I will refer you to it in the next post I make -- they unfortunately don't number posts on threads on this site).
It would be such a pity that we have to disregard your entire post and start from scratch all over again, because you're unsure of what is the meaning of a term you use. If you're not certain about X, then you doubt X. If you're certain about X, then you don't doubt X. And vice versa: If you're not doubting X, then you're certain about X. If you're doubting X, then you're not certain about X.

To simplify things, we can use the words "not certain" in replacement of "doubt". In that case, my question will stay this way:

"So, what you're saying is that a solipsist (John Doe) that believes that his mind is the only thing that can be proven to exist will try to prove to another mind (Mary Jane, which he is not certain that exists) that John Doe's mind exists, even though he believes that Mary Jane cannot prove to herself nothing but that only Mary Jane's mind exists? "

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The irrefutability of solipsism and the recognition that consciousness is not physical

Post by -1- » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:17 am

"So, what you're saying is that a solipsist (John Doe) that believes that his mind is the only thing that can be proven to exist will try to prove to another mind (Mary Jane, which he is not certain that exists) that John Doe's mind exists, even though he believes that Mary Jane cannot prove to herself nothing but that only Mary Jane's mind exists? "
Thanks for reiterating this question, Conde Lucanor.

There are two things I did not claim, and they are mistakenly attributed to what I said.

1. "a solipsist (John Doe) that believes that his mind is the only thing that can be proven to exist" This is not true. There are three qualifiers without which this statement is not something I would say. The one qualifier is that proven of reality; the second qualifier is that "that can be proven to exist to John Doe". The third qualifier is that it is not a belief; it is a statement of fact. The way you worded it was a general "only can be proven is John Does mind". This is what only can be proven of all things in reality to John Doe. Nothing else can be proven to John Doe that is part of reality, but his own mind.

This is one thing that screamed for clarification.

2. John Doe will not prove to Mary Jane that John Doe's mind exists. That would be impossible. John Doe can try, and that is possible, but presenting the actual proof is not possible.

This is the second clarification that was needed in your interpretation.

How will Mary Jane think of John Doe's mind, and how will John Doe think of Mary Jane's mind? "I think the other person exists. I can't prove this, but it seems reasonable to think this. There is a certain probability attached to the supposition that the other mind exists, but this certain probability is unknown for its magnitude. It could be anywhere on a continuous scale from zero to 100%. I am not sure where the certainty falls of the certainty of the supposition, that the other's mind exist." Mary Jane and John Doe would think this of every other instant they experience of reality. They would think of the existence of the trees, dogs, rivers, everything in this way: not certain, but possible. They think of their own, individual minds as the only thing to be certain that it exists in reality.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests