Solipsism cannot be true

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11922
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Arising_uk » Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:16 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:You think that saying "I'm solipsist" or "solipsism is true" is a problem?
:lol: I think it definitely problematic if the one saying it thinks it's true as who are they saying it to?
The only one who says it's a problem is you. So, it's really a problem to you. ...
Well if you can live with the cognitive dissonance then fair play to you. I see it as a philosophical problem for me not an existential one as it's blatant nonsense if you assert it to another and philosophically I think it fails due to existence of the language we have as I think a one could not create such a thing.
So, it was a problem for you.
And now, is it getting in the way of your drinking that some people think solipsism is a good idea?
EB
No, read a bit harder, I said it was a problem then as it was getting in the way of the drinking but I was a young man at the time. Now I just think it a ridiculous idea if asserted by someone as they defeat themselves with the utterance but since they may just wish to explore the idea as a philosophical game then I think there is an answer to it which involves consideration of the language that we have.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11922
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Arising_uk » Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:22 pm

Dontaskme wrote:No thing is looking out of those eyes...when you look at a persons eyes you are looking at an image..there is nothing behind the image. ...
I know there is no separate thing looking out of the eyes, the eye is the part of the body which is doing the looking. As such when I look at a person I tend to look at the eyes to check if they are looking at me.

I'm continuously amazed that you think you can use words like 'person' when you claim to believe what you assert.
The eye is no thing eyeing.
Yeah, yeah, and the arm is no thing arming, the leg is no thing legging, the foot is no thing footing, the mouth is no thing mouthing, ... :roll:

Impenitent
Posts: 2358
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Impenitent » Sat Mar 23, 2019 3:55 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 3:00 am
Impenitent wrote:no, you became aware of an appearance of a response to an apparent utterance and it cascaded from there... ...
A response? From where?

your belief in the appearance of "mama"
your belief in an appearance of externality is not proof of externality... ...
"your"? My knowledge of pronouns proves you wrong.

belief in pronouns is not proof of externality
but don't worry, lots of people hear voices in their head...

-Imp
Not unless they've been taught a language they don't.
"taught" by figments of your imagination

-Imp

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Speakpigeon » Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:55 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:16 pm
Now I just think it a ridiculous idea if asserted by someone as they defeat themselves with the utterance but since they may just wish to explore the idea as a philosophical game then I think there is an answer to it which involves consideration of the language that we have.
I don't see your argument from the existence of language as conclusive. There's very little that's happening in one's mind that you control: emotions, dreams, sensations,impressions, what ideas come into your mind, memories, etc. So, language is just one of those things and none of them proves the solipsist wrong. The solipsist doesn't say he controls all that's happening, only that his mind is all there is. Or, equivalently, that all there is is a mind he is a part of. It's a sort of subjectivisation of material reality. Logically, I don't see how one could prove that wrong.
EB

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11922
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Arising_uk » Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:53 pm

Impenitent wrote: "taught" by figments of your imagination

-Imp
If there are figments of imagination teaching me then they aren't my all my imagination as I seriously doubt an imagination could create the language we are speaking but I'd be open to how one would think this is possible?
Last edited by Arising_uk on Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11922
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Arising_uk » Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:02 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:I don't see your argument from the existence of language as conclusive. There's very little that's happening in one's mind that you control: emotions, dreams, sensations,impressions, what ideas come into your mind, memories, etc. So, language is just one of those things and none of them proves the solipsist wrong. ...
Well one should be able to control their reaction to their emotions or at least have them congruently sorted. Sensations and 'impressions'(not really sure what you mean by this?) I agree you have little control over as they come first, memories can always be rewritten by context and ideas I'd have thought are thought up? I don't think language is at all like those things as I think it takes two to create it.
The solipsist doesn't say he controls all that's happening, only that his mind is all there is. Or, equivalently, that all there is is a mind he is a part of. It's a sort of subjectivisation of material reality. Logically, I don't see how one could prove that wrong.
EB
Don't see this as equivalent at all as the part is effectively saying that is all there is so how is it saying there is a 'greater mind' it is part of? And if it is then it's solipsism is wrong.
Last edited by Arising_uk on Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Impenitent
Posts: 2358
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Impenitent » Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:32 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:53 pm
Impenitent wrote: "taught" by figments of your imagination

-Imp
If there are figments of imagination teaching me then they aren't my all my imagination as I seriously doubt an imagination could create the language we are speaking but I'd be open to how one would think this is possible?
the universe of your experience resides in your thoughts and no where beside...

-Imp

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11922
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Arising_uk » Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:36 am

Impenitent wrote: the universe of your experience resides in your thoughts and no where beside...

-Imp
Well that is the base for the solipsistic assertion and I agree there is truth in it but within my experience I find I can think in a language and within that language there appear to be constructs that I just don't think are possible for me to come up with by my lonesome if I was the only thing about. In fact I'd even be a little stronger and say the language we are speaking itself is enough to justify this as for the life of me I can't see how it could be created by a solitary being?

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Speakpigeon » Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:09 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:02 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:I don't see your argument from the existence of language as conclusive. There's very little that's happening in one's mind that you control: emotions, dreams, sensations,impressions, what ideas come into your mind, memories, etc. So, language is just one of those things and none of them proves the solipsist wrong. ...
Well one should be able to control their reaction to their emotions or at least have them congruently sorted. Sensations and 'impressions'(not really sure what you mean by this?) I agree you have little control over as they come first, memories can always be rewritten by context and ideas I'd have thought are thought up? I don't think language is at all like those things as I think it takes two to create it.
That may be what you believe but maybe you're wrong. Maybe language happens like dreams, or emotions, or memories, or indeed ideas. They just happens outside your control.
By impressions, I mean impressions that are not sensations, dreams, ideas, etc. Most people don't even notice them. They're at the threshold of consciousness, stay there for less than a second and most of the time are immediately forgotten. Those you notice you think of them as ideas you have, which is correct, but what is not correct is to think they are produced by your conscious mind. Instead, they are produced by an unconscious process and only the end-result will be conscious. Impressions may be thought of as unobtrusive comments your unconscious mind provides you with to help you go through your day. You take notice of them or not, depending on how busy your are, and you act on them or not depending on how you feel about them but you often do without really paying attention. Don't worry about them. They're there for your own good.
The solipsist doesn't say he controls all that's happening, only that his mind is all there is. Or, equivalently, that all there is is a mind he is a part of. It's a sort of subjectivisation of material reality. Logically, I don't see how one could prove that wrong.
Don't see this as equivalent at all as the part is effectively saying that is all there is so how is it saying there is a 'greater mind' it is part of? And if it is then it's solipsism is wrong.[/quote]
Maybe it is but the discussion is about whether it is logically inconsistent.
EB

Impenitent
Posts: 2358
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Impenitent » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:04 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:36 am
Impenitent wrote: the universe of your experience resides in your thoughts and no where beside...

-Imp
Well that is the base for the solipsistic assertion and I agree there is truth in it but within my experience I find I can think in a language and within that language there appear to be constructs that I just don't think are possible for me to come up with by my lonesome if I was the only thing about. In fact I'd even be a little stronger and say the language we are speaking itself is enough to justify this as for the life of me I can't see how it could be created by a solitary being?
"we" exist only in your thoughts

-Imp

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11922
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Arising_uk » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:11 am

Impenitent wrote:
"we" exist only in your thoughts

-Imp
There you go again, "we"?
This is why we found the best way to deal with the solipsist is to just keep punching them. As what you are saying is if I stand in front of you and you shut your eyes and don't think about me I don't exist, well I have a big wake up call for "you". :)

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11922
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Arising_uk » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:51 am

Impenitent wrote: the universe of your experience resides in your thoughts and no where beside...

-Imp
"your"?

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11922
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Arising_uk » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:00 am

Speakpigeon wrote:That may be what you believe but maybe you're wrong. Maybe language happens like dreams, or emotions, or memories, or indeed ideas. They just happens outside your control. ...
Maybe I am so explain to me how a solitary being could think up a construct that involves communicating? Who would it be communicating with?
By impressions, I mean impressions that are not sensations, dreams, ideas, etc. Most people don't even notice them. They're at the threshold of consciousness, stay there for less than a second and most of the time are immediately forgotten. Those you notice you think of them as ideas you have, which is correct, but what is not correct is to think they are produced by your conscious mind. Instead, they are produced by an unconscious process and only the end-result will be conscious. Impressions may be thought of as unobtrusive comments your unconscious mind provides you with to help you go through your day. You take notice of them or not, depending on how busy your are, and you act on them or not depending on how you feel about them but you often do without really paying attention. Don't worry about them. They're there for your own good. ...
You'd have to give me an example of such a thing before I could feel worried about it?
Maybe it is but the discussion is about whether it is logically inconsistent.
EB
It's not logically consistent to think that a language such as ours could be created by a solitary being as the purpose of such a language as ours is to communicate with an other as who would this being be communicating with?

roydop
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:37 pm

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by roydop » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:56 am

Have you ever known anything other than your existence? To believe that you will not exist is an assumption. It literally is. Now does one take a perspective based on facts or assumptions?

The world goes away in dreamless sleep and yet you still exist.

The world is dependent upon consciousness.

Maxwell Planck: "I consider consciousness as fundamental, I consider matter to be derivative." This has all been proven, people.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Speakpigeon » Tue Mar 26, 2019 10:57 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:00 am
Speakpigeon wrote:That may be what you believe but maybe you're wrong. Maybe language happens like dreams, or emotions, or memories, or indeed ideas. They just happens outside your control. ...
Maybe I am so explain to me how a solitary being could think up a construct that involves communicating? Who would it be communicating with?
Maybe it is but the discussion is about whether it is logically inconsistent.
It's not logically consistent to think that a language such as ours could be created by a solitary being as the purpose of such a language as ours is to communicate with an other as who would this being be communicating with?
From a solipsist point of view, the phenomena of subjective experience are not epistemologically significant. Having the impression that you are seeing a tree is just that, an impression. It doesn't mean there's a tree at all. So, language? It just happens. No need to invent it.
EB

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests