Is The World An Illusion?

[-1-]

I don't know about your voices, but this is what my voices tell me. Verbatim: The world may or may not be a solipsistic state. How would you figure out which world you are in?

And since I am no closer to contriving an experiment in which I can tell the difference between a solipsistic and a non-solipsistic state, it is word that has absolutely no empirical meaning to me.

P.S I don't have a lisp. You just don't know how to spell "solipsism" and "solipsistic".

Tooshee. (I also don't know how to spell "tooshee".)

There are many paths to satisfaction. Have you tried heroin? I heard it trumps quoting philosophers.

I've never heard Trump ever quoting any philosopher.

I am going to try a quick experiment, OK? I think you need an optometrist, but I need to be sure. Do you see any difference between the following two letters: T t

HA! another quick experiment: have you ever considered that someone, while typing, is too hasty, and when intends to press the "shift" key, the shift is missed, thus producing a lower-case t instead of a capital T?

But I am just arguing for argument's sake. My first response in this section was a joke based on an equivocation. My addiction to punning made me do it.

What if I cause a high-charge melt-down? Will you pay my electroneurosurgery?

You don't have medical insurance in your illusionary world? Poor imagination...

HA! this time I'm serious, not joking. Events in the hallucinatory or imaginary world 1. are not our doing and 2. are not dependent on our abilities and desires and 3. are not dependent on our will; despite they being reported to us and to us alone via our senses.

If they, that is, the events, were, then we would not have an illusion of living a life in a world of reality.

This is a fallacious thinking that events in our imaginary world are a function of our imagination. My grade 7 teacher smirked all-knowingly, when he recounted the tale of the bishop or somebody who invented the idea of solipsism, and he took a walk in his rose garden, took a rose to his nose to smell it, but he pricked his finger with a thistle. The gardener said to him, "You see, your Most Exalted Honourable Highness, you oughtn't to imagine there was a rose thorn there." I went home and did some thinking; resulting in this : I wanted to tell the teacher next day that he was wrong, the gardener, because of 1. 2. and 3. above. But I did not, because the teacher was known to deal out the hardest-hitting slaps on the face to student. (This incident took place not long after WWII in Europe was over, and standards in teaching and school discipline were different then.)

This was the first time I had a chance to recount this tale and raise my objection. Thanks for the opportunity, Logik.

[Logik]

HA! another quick experiment: have you ever considered that someone, while typing, is too hasty, and when intends to press the "shift" key, the shift is missed, thus producing a lower-case t instead of a capital T?

Of course, also a valid hypothesis. But rather than asking whether I meant "T" or "t" you went and assumed I made an error.

But I am just arguing for argument's sake.

Typical philosopher!

My addiction to punning made me do it.

Everyone is an addict. Know your poison!

HA! this time I'm serious, not joking. Events in the hallucinatory or imaginary world 1. are not our doing

That depends on where you draw the line between your conscious and subconscious mind. Is your autonomous breathing "your" doing or not?
Is your heart beating "your" doing or not?

and 2. are not dependent on our abilities and desires and 3. are not dependent on our will; despite they being reported to us and to us alone via our senses.

If they, that is, the events, were, then we would not have an illusion of living a life in a world of reality.

But may be the abilities, desires and will of your subconscious mind.

This is a fallacious thinking that events in our imaginary world are a function of our imagination. My grade 7 teacher smirked all-knowingly, when he recounted the tale of the bishop or somebody who invented the idea of solipsism, and he took a walk in his rose garden, took a rose to his nose to smell it, but he pricked his finger with a thistle. The gardener said to him, "You see, your Most Exalted Honourable Highness, you oughtn't to imagine there was a rose thorn there." I went home and did some thinking; resulting in this : I wanted to tell the teacher next day that he was wrong, the gardener, because of 1. 2. and 3. above. But I did not, because the teacher was known to deal out the hardest-hitting slaps on the face to student. (This incident took place not long after WWII in Europe was over, and standards in teaching and school discipline were different then.)

This was the first time I had a chance to recount this tale and raise my objection. Thanks for the opportunity, Logik.

If the world is indeed an illusion then lets say that my subconscious mind is far more capable and creative compared to my conscious mind.

If I have no control over the "hallucinations" - even if they are a product of my subconscious mind. They appear external to "me". "I" am the thing that has agency/control/will.

[-1-]

Logik: there are two parts to a mind, according to your hypothesis. But one is not part of the will of your conscious mind, it does not obey the demands of your conscious mind.

There is no other indication of the existence of the subconscious mind than its function to supply the conscious mind with stimuli.

Then how do you know it's part of you?

And if you insist that it's a part of you, then how come part of your mind does not have access to other parts of your mind?

Keep in mind, please, that we are talking about a world of pure illusion, with our mind being the only thing occupying it. If there is a conscious part, which receives the stimuli, and processes them, and there is the subconscious part, which creates the stimuli and keeps the details in order, then what is it that separates the two? In our "physical" world there is a functioning organ that makes it possible. How can you make the two-part mind possible in a world where there is nothing more than a singular mind?

I am not saying it's impossible. I am saying that the theory all of a sudden requires other elements to be plugged into it that we haven't thought of until now.

The more I think about it, the more I reject the possibility of a singular-mind solipsism. It is either a two-part mind that exists, or else there exists a mind a stimulus-producing agent. Both the subconscious part of the two-part mind and the stimulus-producing agent, whatever it is, must keep the details of our experienced stimuli in order.

[Logik]

Logik: there is two parts to a mind, according to your hypothesis. But one is not part of the will of your conscious mind, it does not obey the demands of your conscious mind.

If you want to be pedantic, my hypothesis is that there is no difference between mind and body (I reject cartesian dualism). But there are some things I have knowledge about, and therefore - I have some control over. And some things I know nothing about, and have no control over.

There is no other indication of the existence of the subconscious mind than its function to supply the conscious mind with stimuli.

Given the hypothesis above - I have all the evidence in front of me. I can raise my hand and move my fingers at will (me typing).
I can't get my nails or hair to grow at will. And yet they grow.

Then how do you know it's part of you?

I have a fluid notion of where my body starts and ends. My brain is part of my body....

And if you insist that it's a part of you, then how come part of your mind does not have access to other parts of your mind?

I don't know. Missing wires/neurons?

Keep in mind, please, that we are talking about a world of pure illusion, with our mind being the only thing occupying it.

So in your taxonomy illusions can only take places in minds?
What would you call colour blindness? Or drug-induced synesthesia?

The more I think about it, the more I reject the possibility of a singular-mind solipsism. It is either a two-part mind that exists, or else there exists a mind a stimulus-producing agent. Both the subconscious part of the two-part mind and the stimulus-producing agent, whatever it is, must keep the details of our experienced stimuli in order.

And I still insist there is no difference. No way to prove or disprove it. I reject solipsism on the grounds that it's just more fun this way.

LIve to explore. Yay adventure!

And whatever contingencies arise from my monist taxonomy - I don't care.
I am tired of looking for Truth. Truth wins the Hide-and-seek game!