Solipsism cannot be true

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2028
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Solipsism cannot be true

Post by bahman » Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:00 pm

This argument has two parts: (A) We first argue that a mind is involved in a change and (B) We then argue that at least one another mind exist.

A:

Setup: Consider a change in a system, X to Y.
1) X and Y cannot coexist therefore X has to vanishes before Y takes place
2) Y however cannot comes out of nothingness (remember that there is nothing when X vanishes)
3) Therefore there should exist a mind that experiences X and causes Y

B:

1) There is a mind for a change (from the last argument)
2) There are changes that I am not responsible for it
3) Therefore there exists at least one mind in charge of other changes

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 02, 2019 12:09 pm

bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:00 pm
2) There are changes that I am not responsible for it
3) Therefore there exists at least one mind in charge of other changes
Would you say that you are responsible for your heart beating?

Don't answer that. It's rhetorical - simply demonstrate how you can stop and restart your heartbeat at will.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2028
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by bahman » Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:29 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 12:09 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:00 pm
2) There are changes that I am not responsible for it
3) Therefore there exists at least one mind in charge of other changes
Would you say that you are responsible for your heart beating?
Human is constitute of many minds. I am not the mind in charge of heart beat.
Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 12:09 pm
Don't answer that. It's rhetorical - simply demonstrate how you can stop and restart your heartbeat at will.
I cannot. I might be able to do it by practice but I have never practiced it.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 4:11 pm

bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:29 pm
Human is constitute of many minds. I am not the mind in charge of heart beat.
So you are claiming that there is more than 1 mind in your own head? Isn't that the very conclusion of your argument?

Begging the question...

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2028
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:06 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 4:11 pm
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:29 pm
Human is constitute of many minds. I am not the mind in charge of heart beat.
So you are claiming that there is more than 1 mind in your own head? Isn't that the very conclusion of your argument?

Begging the question...
Yes, we have more than one mind. That naturally follows from the first argument, "there is a mind if there is a change".

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:36 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:06 pm
Yes, we have more than one mind. That naturally follows from the first argument, "there is a mind if there is a change".
The counter-argument to that is that not all change is caused by minds.

There's more problems here:
Setup: Consider a change in a system, X to Y.
1) X and Y cannot coexist therefore X has to vanishes before Y takes place
2) Y however cannot comes out of nothingness (remember that there is nothing when X vanishes)
3) Therefore there should exist a mind that experiences X and causes Y
If 3 is valid, then your setup is invalid, for the system is not X to Y. The system is X to P. Then P to Y.

This is textbook category theory, and textbook emergence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory

f(X) = Y
g(Y) = Z
g(f(X)) = Z

We could say that g(f(X)) is an emergent phenomenon. And we could call it M(X). M() for Mind, but if the mind was passive and merely observing X, then Z the mind should be skeptical of any accusations for having caused Z
Attachments
Category theory.png
Category theory.png (21.39 KiB) Viewed 359 times

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2028
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:14 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:36 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:06 pm
Yes, we have more than one mind. That naturally follows from the first argument, "there is a mind if there is a change".
The counter-argument to that is that not all change is caused by minds.
That is not possible unless you show that my argument is wrong.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:36 pm
There's more problems here:
Setup: Consider a change in a system, X to Y.
1) X and Y cannot coexist therefore X has to vanishes before Y takes place
2) Y however cannot comes out of nothingness (remember that there is nothing when X vanishes)
3) Therefore there should exist a mind that experiences X and causes Y
If 3 is valid, then your setup is invalid, for the system is not X to Y. The system is X to P. Then P to Y.
No. We consider a change in a system and then show that the middle state, nothing, is necessary.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:36 pm
This is textbook category theory, and textbook emergence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory

f(X) = Y
g(Y) = Z
g(f(X)) = Z

We could say that g(f(X)) is an emergent phenomenon. And we could call it M(X). M() for Mind, but if the mind was passive and merely observing X, then Z the mind should be skeptical of any accusations for having caused Z
Of course. Therefore there is another mind which is in charge of change.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:20 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:14 pm
That is not possible unless you show that my argument is wrong.
I did show you that your pre-suppositions are flawed, but that didn't convince you.
So then what would convince you that your argument is wrong?
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:14 pm
No. We consider a change in a system and then show that the middle state, nothing, is necessary.
That's insufficient. Just because you have proven X is not causal to Y, does not demonstrate that M is causal to Y.

There could be a hidden variable.
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:14 pm
Of course. Therefore there is another mind which is in charge of change.
Or it could be your own mind's doing. A part over which you have no control over. Like the part that keeps your heart beating...

You will then argue that it's not the "self", but I will just counter with "where does the self begin and end?"
And you will give me some non-universal distinction that is trivial to provide counter-examples to...

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2028
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:07 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:20 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:14 pm
That is not possible unless you show that my argument is wrong.
I did show you that your pre-suppositions are flawed, but that didn't convince you.
So then what would convince you that your argument is wrong?
Perhaps I missed your point. It would be nice of you if you could please explain it again.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:20 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:14 pm
No. We consider a change in a system and then show that the middle state, nothing, is necessary.
That's insufficient. Just because you have proven X is not causal to Y, does not demonstrate that M is causal to Y.
There is no solution out of it.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:20 pm
There could be a hidden variable.
Hidden variable demonstrates variation in a field. You need a mind that is in control of change of this new field.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:20 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:14 pm
Of course. Therefore there is another mind which is in charge of change.
Or it could be your own mind's doing. A part over which you have no control over. Like the part that keeps your heart beating...
Of course there is another mind that I have no control over it and it is in charge of doing other things.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:20 pm
You will then argue that it's not the "self", but I will just counter with "where does the self begin and end?"
Each mind has its own function. They are connected such that to make the person functional.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:20 pm
And you will give me some non-universal distinction that is trivial to provide counter-examples to...
The second argument stands on the first argument. It is easy to imagine a person with many minds each perform its own job.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:48 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:07 pm
Perhaps I missed your point. It would be nice of you if you could please explain it again.
You "set up" the system as only X and Y, while in another discussion you said that everything is causal.
So if you are absolutely certain that X is NOT causal to Y, then your conception of the system is incomplete.

You are missing at least two causal variables. The one which causes X and the one which causes Y.

And we could dive deeper into what you mean by "causality" and how you determined that X and Y don't co-exist.
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:07 pm
There is no solution out of it.
And yet you have somehow reached a conclusion...
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:07 pm
Hidden variable demonstrates variation in a field.
No, it's wayyyyy simpler than that. Principle of superposition says that a phenomenon can be perfectly accounted for by its causal factors.

So if 3 of the causal factors explain 95% of the phenomenon - you are missing a variable to account for the remaining 5%.

Completeness implies perfect determinism. If you are observing a phenomenon but you can't explain even one aspect of it - you are missing a variable.
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:07 pm
Of course there is another mind that I have no control over it and it is in charge of doing other things.
When did solipsism ever argue for total control over one's mind?
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:07 pm
The second argument stands on the first argument. It is easy to imagine a person with many minds each perform its own job.
Naturally. But I would argue that it's still the same mind because the modules are inter-dependent. As it is evident by people dying when you remove the really important bits from the brain. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Unless you understand it at the level of each module.

You seem to have identified "mind" with "agency"

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2028
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:10 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:48 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:07 pm
Perhaps I missed your point. It would be nice of you if you could please explain it again.
You "set up" the system as only X and Y, while in another discussion you said that everything is causal.
Yes, everything is causal in the sense that mind causes changes. An state of affair, a physical form, does not have causal power.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:48 pm
So if you are absolutely certain that X is NOT causal to Y, then your conception of the system is incomplete.
No it is not incomplete. In fact I can show that assuming that X is casual leads to contradiction: X causes Y. X must exist to do so. This means that there is a point that both X and Y exist. X and Y cannot coexist since the state of affair becomes ill-defined. Therefore X cannot cause Y.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:48 pm
You are missing at least two causal variables. The one which causes X and the one which causes Y.
I cannot follow you here.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:48 pm
And we could dive deeper into what you mean by "causality" and how you determined that X and Y don't co-exist.
In here, I mean creation by causation.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:48 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:07 pm
There is no solution out of it.
And yet you have somehow reached a conclusion...
Of course.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:48 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:07 pm
Hidden variable demonstrates variation in a field.
No, it's wayyyyy simpler than that. Principle of superposition says that a phenomenon can be perfectly accounted for by its causal factors.

So if 3 of the causal factors explain 95% of the phenomenon - you are missing a variable to account for the remaining 5%.

Completeness implies perfect determinism. If you are observing a phenomenon but you can't explain even one aspect of it - you are missing a variable.
I already argue that X cannot cause Y in the beginning of this post.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:48 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:07 pm
Of course there is another mind that I have no control over it and it is in charge of doing other things.
When did solipsism ever argue for total control over one's mind?
That is not the issue. I should have only said that there exists another mind which is in charge of other changes.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:48 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:07 pm
The second argument stands on the first argument. It is easy to imagine a person with many minds each perform its own job.
Naturally. But I would argue that it's still the same mind because the modules are inter-dependent. As it is evident by people dying when you remove the really important bits from the brain. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Unless you understand it at the level of each module.

You seem to have identified "mind" with "agency"
I identify a set of minds with an agency unless you are Mind.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:19 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:10 pm
I already argue that X cannot cause Y in the beginning of this post.
Yes but something causes Y. You are saying "because not X therefore M" implying that any and all changes occurs under the agency/awareness/control of the Solipsists's mind.

I that were the case then your inability to pull a unicorn out of a hat is also evidence against solipsism.

For in a world where all causes occur under your mind's control you are not subjected to the laws of physics. You are only bound by imagination.
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:10 pm
I identify a set of minds with an agency unless you are Mind.
OK, but is agency a sufficient criterion for something to be deemed a mind? What about robots/automata?

What about gravity? It has causal power, but not agency.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2028
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:36 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:19 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:10 pm
I already argue that X cannot cause Y in the beginning of this post.
Yes but something causes Y. You are saying "because not X therefore M" implying that any and all changes occurs under the agency/awareness/control of the Solipsists's mind.

I that were the case then your inability to pull a unicorn out of a hat is also evidence against solipsism.
What other option you have except my unicorn?
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:19 pm
For in a world where all causes occur under your mind's control you are not subjected to the laws of physics. You are only bound by imagination.
I can cause certain changes respecting laws of physics. That is different from being subjected to laws of physics.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:19 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:10 pm
I identify a set of minds with an agency unless you are Mind.
OK, but is agency a sufficient criterion for something to be deemed a mind? What about robots/automata?

What about gravity? It has causal agency.
Yes, there is always a mind in charge of a change.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:52 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:36 pm
I can cause certain changes respecting laws of physics. That is different from being subjected to laws of physics.
No, you can't. You cannot respect laws which you are unaware of.

Before you learned about gravity you should've been perfectly capable to make any object defy it.

If the objects in your imagination are subjected to the laws of physics, then the laws of physics are your mind's doing to.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2028
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by bahman » Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:14 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:52 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:36 pm
I can cause certain changes respecting laws of physics. That is different from being subjected to laws of physics.
No, you can't. You cannot respect laws which you are unaware of.

Before you learned about gravity you should've been perfectly capable to make any object defy it.

If the objects in your imagination are subjected to the laws of physics, then the laws of physics are your mind's doing to.
A baby is unaware of laws of physics, laws of Newton, but still he walks. We use laws of physics in every motion we make yet unaware of them. Think of walking. We move our legs backward. Our feet is touching the ground. There exists friction between our feet and the ground which is forward. Therefore we move forward.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests