Can you prove solipsism true?

[Dontaskme]

Yeah you’re definitely triggered

Do you even know how to have a philosophical conversation with yourself? or are you just pretending other people exist so as to not appear like you are talking to yourself?

[Darkneos]

Yeah you’re definitely triggered

Do you even know how to have a philosophical conversation with yourself? or are you just pretending other people exist so as to not appear like you are talking to yourself?

Suuuper triggered

[Dontaskme]

Suuuper triggered

Why it seems you do not like the most simplistic of answers to your questions. Would you like me to make more complex answers, how about making them so complex no one but me will understand them?

[Darkneos]

Suuuper triggered

Why it seems you do not like the most simplistic of answers to your questions. Would you like me to make more complex answers, how about making them so complex no one but me will understand them?

Still triggered.

[Dontaskme]

Suuuper triggered

Why it seems you do not like the most simplistic of answers to your questions. Would you like me to make more complex answers, how about making them so complex no one but me will understand them?

Still triggered.

I'm triggered to answer questions when I see them on the forum that I like to philosophize on, but so what?

Is there something I say that triggers you to keep saying I'm triggered?

[Darkneos]

Why it seems you do not like the most simplistic of answers to your questions. Would you like me to make more complex answers, how about making them so complex no one but me will understand them?

Still triggered.

I'm triggered to answer questions when I see them on the forum that I like to philosophize on, but so what?

Is there something I say that triggers you to keep saying I'm triggered?

Philosophize? Considering your post history you don’t do much of that.

[Dontaskme]

Philosophize? Considering your post history you don’t do much of that.

Well, at least you got that right, for sure.

[Darkneos]

Philosophize? Considering your post history you don’t do much of that.

Well, at least you got that right, for sure.

Well at least you admit it

[Dontaskme]

Philosophize? Considering your post history you don’t do much of that.

Well, at least you got that right, for sure.

Well at least you admit it

Well of course I'm going to admit my philosophy, I will always endeavour to submit my admit as being a very serious action.

[Darkneos]

Well, at least you got that right, for sure.

Well at least you admit it

Well of course I'm going to admit my philosophy, I will always endeavour to submit my admit as being a very serious action.

Flew right over your head didn’t it?

[Darkneos]

It’s unfalsifiable. There is no way to test it, no way to prove or disprove it.

Then stop asking stupid questions then.

And bye the way, questions can only arise to the sense of a separate self. That sense of separation does not exist, you even said so yourself, there is no such separation between the mind and body. Or the awareness of the thing being awared.

Questions can arise without a sense of separate self (not o mention you can’t even use the term right as that’s not what separate self means). You don’t really need a sense of self to ask questions. I said self, mind, consciousness are emergent properties of the brain, obviously they aren’t separate from the brain but the way emergence works is that such things have properties that are unlike what enables them. Yet they cannot exist without what enables them. So in a sense they are “separate” from body in that they have properties the body doesn’t, but also not in that they cannot exist apart from the body and brain.

And awared isn’t a word so your last sentence is meaningless.

At this point it’s just easier to call you stupid.

[Iwannaplato]

http://bc.upjp2.edu.pl/Content/5621/35_ ... odnym3.pdf

I was wondering if this is the case after looking at the paper above. It seems to just say that if someone is a solipsist then you can’t argue them out of it because their view is consistent and not illogical but I’m not entirely sure. I think that later on he does prove it true and that’s what bugs me.

Everywhere I have asked I get the same answer that it’s impossible because you can’t get outside your perception of the world so you’re unable to confirm it right or wrong. But I’m wondering if there is some secret reasoning that someone could do.

I would rather it be truly impossible so I can leave it behind because it’s had a massively negative impact on my life and relationships with others.

Thinking about the issue is not going to help. If this idea of solipsism managed to bring down the quality of your life, there are other problems that need to be taken care of: things like your social life, family issues, past trauma, meaningful work and so on. You could see the ability of a philosophical concept to drag you down as a side effect and not the main problem. And in a sense it is a distraction and seems, I say seems, easier to deal with. But actually getting into the feelings related to those other issues is vastly more important. If they are dealt with you'll find that the solipsisism might interest you intellectually, like a puzzle, but will not get its hooks into your emotional life. Counseling, therapy, changes in the basic conditions of your life, that's where the solutions lie.

[Dontaskme]

Questions can arise without a sense of separate self (not o mention you can’t even use the term right as that’s not what separate self means). You don’t really need a sense of self to ask questions.

Asking questions to other people implies there is the sense of other people existing apart from you, meaning to you, there is the sense of other people existing who are separate from you. If that sense of separation did not exist, and wasn't there, why would you be asking the question, and to whom? if you say I am asking my self, then that implies there are two of you...One who doesn't know something, and One who does know the something the other One didn't know. The absurdity of this behavior is present only when there is the sense of I am a separate self, this separation is illusory.

I said self, mind, consciousness are emergent properties of the brain, obviously they aren’t separate from the brain but the way emergence works is that such things have properties that are unlike what enables them.

To claim there is a self, mind, consciousness that can emerge from the brain is the same as saying there appears to be a sense of a separate self apart from the brain, where the brain releases a sense of I that can claim I have a brain..and yet no I ever occupied or emerged from the brain, the sense of self was always just the brain braining, as and through brain activity.

This sense of I or self or my consciousness, is all illusory.

And awared isn’t a word so your last sentence is meaningless.

Awared is a word.

I am finding it quite amusing why you would act so pedantic over a simple word..look it up, it's a word with meaning.

At this point it’s just easier to call you stupid.

I know you are but what am I ?

QUESTION: Can you prove solipsism true?

ANSWER:

It’s unfalsifiable. There is no way to test it, no way to prove or disprove it.

However based on the evidence it doesn’t seem like it’s likely true. Though if someone seriously believed it I wouldn’t be able to argue them out of it, because there really isn’t a way to know for sure.

It really just boils down to what you believe, that’s it.

And there is the proof that there is indeed arising here, the sense of separate self....and that you have to answer your own question, as if there were two of you..one who didn't know, and one who did know what the other you did not.

[Age]

http://bc.upjp2.edu.pl/Content/5621/35_ ... odnym3.pdf

I was wondering if this is the case after looking at the paper above. It seems to just say that if someone is a solipsist then you can’t argue them out of it because their view is consistent and not illogical but I’m not entirely sure. I think that later on he does prove it true and that’s what bugs me.

Everywhere I have asked I get the same answer that it’s impossible because you can’t get outside your perception of the world so you’re unable to confirm it right or wrong. But I’m wondering if there is some secret reasoning that someone could do.

YES. THERE IS.

Also, NO one can 'argue', from one sense, with ANY one "else" while the "other" is HOLDING ONTO or MAINTAINING A BELIEF. OF COURSE one 'could' 'argue' with the one WITH A BELIEF, and one 'could' even present a sound AND valid argument, that is; one that could NOT be refuted by ANY one, but while one HAS A BELIEF there is absolutely NOTHING that could 'argue them out of THEIR BELIEF'.

I would rather it be truly impossible so I can leave it behind because it’s had a massively negative impact on my life and relationships with others.

[Age]

I think if you kidnapped them, starved them while dressed in a leather in a sado-masochist dungeon, and then cut off a few of their fingers.... it would finally sink in that there is another force operating independently of them.

But, to 'them', it could, or would, all just be happening in 'the mind', of course.