Solipsism cannot be true

Dontaskme · Post by **Dontaskme** » Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:51 am

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:45 am
I got to "All truth is conceptual first" in my early 20s.

Good for you.

A concept is an appearance. Appearances are a half truth...not the whole truth, your missing a part of the truth.

.

Logik · Post by **Logik** » Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:53 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:51 am A concept is an appearance. Appearances are a half truth...not the whole truth, your missing a part of the truth.

Yes, captain obvious. So are you.

Truth is a concept

"Appearance" is a concept

"concept" is a concept

This is the hand we have been dealt - this is the playing field that we are all stuck in.

Dontaskme · Post by **Dontaskme** » Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:58 am

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:53 am
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:51 am A concept is an appearance. Appearances are a half truth...not the whole truth, your missing a part of the truth.
Yes, captain obvious. So are you.

Truth is a concept
"Appearance" is a concept
"concept" is a concept

This is the hand we have been dealt - this is the playing field that we are all stuck in.

Truth is not conceptual. You are the one who is stuck in that material paradigm.

.

Dontaskme · Post by **Dontaskme** » Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:18 am

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 11:56 pmThey are proof that there is an other who must speak this language as I seriously doubt a one could create such a thing as the pronouns that this language has, or even the nouns come to that, as who would it be talking to or about what to whom? Since there is an other then there is an external world to oneself.

No proof of an external objective world.

It's a conceptual projection within the first person singular pronoun.

That which is conceptual has no reality.

.

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:40 am

Dontaskme wrote:
No proof of an external objective world.

Who said objective?

It's a conceptual projection within the first person singular pronoun.

A projection of what?

That which is conceptual has no reality.

Compared to what?

Dontaskme · Post by **Dontaskme** » Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:48 am

Dontaskme wrote:
No proof of an external objective world.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:40 amWho said objective?

The same one who said external.

It's a conceptual projection within the first person singular pronoun.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:40 amA projection of what?

A concept.

That which is conceptual has no reality.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:40 amCompared to what?

That which has no reality cannot compare itself.

.

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:33 pm

The same one who said external.

I said external world not 'external objective world' that is you adding your slant.

A concept. ...

A concept about what?

That which has no reality cannot compare itself.

And yet you can talk about it?

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:35 pm

Logik wrote:Irrelevant question. ...

Ok, how could a one create a language that involves there being two?

Everybody settles for an "uncaused cause" at some point. ...

Do they?

If universes can be uncauesd - so can minds.

Then so can 'God's', the point?

Dontaskme · Post by **Dontaskme** » Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:42 pm

The same one who said external.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:33 pmI said external world not 'external objective world' that is you adding your slant.

Whatever, same difference.
There is no proof of an external to yourself.

A concept. ...

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:33 pmA concept about what?

Whatever you imagine it to be.

That which has no reality cannot compare itself.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:33 pmAnd yet you can talk about it?

That which appears to talk about itself never uttered a word.

.

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:44 pm

Dontaskme wrote:Whatever, same difference.
There is no proof of an external to yourself. ...

This language and you are living proof of it.

Whatever you imagine it to be. ...

Given what you say who's this 'you' you are talking about?

That which appears to talk about itself never uttered a word..

And that would be?

Dontaskme · Post by **Dontaskme** » Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:52 pm

Dontaskme wrote:Whatever, same difference.
There is no proof of an external to yourself. ...

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:44 pmThis language and you are living proof of it.

Proof is a conceptual idea, knowledge informs the illusory nature of reality, it doesn't prove it, to prove it would require a prover.

Whatever you imagine it to be. ...

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:44 pmGiven what you say who's this 'you' you are talking about?

Who ever you imagine yourself to be.

That which appears to talk about itself never uttered a word..

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:44 pmAnd that would be?

The appearance of a word...which is an optical illusion of sound heard as word...aka nothing.

.

Logik · Post by **Logik** » Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:10 pm

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:35 pm
Logik wrote:Irrelevant question. ...
Ok, how could a one create a language that involves there being two?

Computer scientists do it all the time. We invent languages because we need them.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:35 pm
Everybody settles for an "uncaused cause" at some point. ...
Do they?
If universes can be uncauesd - so can minds.
Then so can 'God's', the point?

It's the same concept with a different label

Uncaused cause = God = Universe = Singularity = Big Bang

They are functionally equivalent ideas.

roydop · Post by **roydop** » Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:52 pm

There is more evidence backing solipsism than the alternative.

Has there ever been a time when you have not existed?

Any answer other than "no" is based strictly upon assumption and speculation (assuming someone else's point of view).

Given the fact that you have absolutely no hard evidence of your non existence, any idea that you do not exist at some other time is in error.

This means that your idea of what you are is in error.

You are not the body. The world arises and passes within you, not the other way around.

This inverted view humans have is the source of all suffering.

Logik · Post by **Logik** » Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:15 pm

roydop wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:52 pm There is more evidence backing solipsism than the alternative.

Because solipsism is unfalsifiable. And so both hits and misses justify it.

That is how all confirmation bias works. Your episteme needs to be a clean slate! Any and all unfalsifiable ideas produce this side-effect.

If you are going to hold any unfalsifiable ideas in your head - you better put them there yourself and understand WHY you have done it.

roydop · Post by **roydop** » Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:29 pm

I'm exaclty not holding an idea in my head, I'm experincing the truth of my existence. It is non existence that is the idea. Therefore the idea must be incorrect because direct experience proves otherwise.

Has there ever been a time when you have not existed?

Philosophy Now Forum

Solipsism cannot be true

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Re: Solipsism cannot be true