Solipsism cannot be true
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
"why are you trying to convince other people solipsism is somehow wrong?"
Cuz there's an awful lot of 'crazy' in the world that needs combattin'. Solipsism is one strain of 'crazy' [shit] that needs combattin'. If a body rolls around in that crazy [shit] he's gonna end up crazy as a shithouse rat).
It's the same reason I defend free will: I see folks who damned well KNIOW they're free willed defend the idea they're not (deny their own experience of self-direction) cuz they read it in a book; I see folks deny they -- as selves -- even exist, as they type furiously expressing themselves.
It's why I oppose communism cuz there are folks who -- despite the anti-human, anti-individual nature of communism -- promote it, defend it, would shackle me (and you) to see it locked in to place.
It's why I oppose Islamism, transgenderism, identity politics, and on and on: again, there's an awful lot of 'crazy' in the world (I live in in the world so it's my best interest to promote sanity).
#
"You know you exist but you don't know whether other people are real or just a figment of your feverish imagination."
I know me, know my limits: you exist pigeon, I absolutely KNOW you do.
It's the same reason I defend free will: I see folks who damned well KNIOW they're free willed defend the idea they're not (deny their own experience of self-direction) cuz they read it in a book; I see folks deny they -- as selves -- even exist, as they type furiously expressing themselves.
It's why I oppose communism cuz there are folks who -- despite the anti-human, anti-individual nature of communism -- promote it, defend it, would shackle me (and you) to see it locked in to place.
It's why I oppose Islamism, transgenderism, identity politics, and on and on: again, there's an awful lot of 'crazy' in the world (I live in in the world so it's my best interest to promote sanity).
#
"You know you exist but you don't know whether other people are real or just a figment of your feverish imagination."
I know me, know my limits: you exist pigeon, I absolutely KNOW you do.
Re: Solipsism cannot be true
So what makes that body "dead"? If that body was called "Joe Smith", then why do we think "Joe Smith" isn't here anymore when the thing we call "Joe Smith" still exists?Have you not seen a dead body?
Something isn't right and the mind/ego will try to slough it off, and it'll probably work.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Solipsism cannot be true
Not quite, only some things are alive.Dontaskme wrote: No thing is alive. ...
Well obviously I can't know I'm dead when I'm dead as I'm dead but I know I'm alive as I'm not dead.You have no way of knowing if you are alive or dead. ...
My Gran but she only said that one day I will die, as presumably she thought it too stupid to tell me I'm alive.Who told you you are alive and that one day you will die? ...
Well I had it happen to me it but I doubt it was from 'first person appearance'(whatever that is?) as at the time I was not fully developed.Did you from your first person appearance witness your own birth? ...
Eh!? How could I witness it? What I will be doing is experiencing dying.will you witness your own death?
The regression therapists disagree with you but they're probably mad too. If you mean by 'state' a thing to experience then death is not such a thing as one is dead but birth is a state that happens to one. Can one have knowledge of it? I doubt it as memory and language is not well developed at that stage.You have no knowledge of such states as birth and death.
Last edited by Arising_uk on Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Solipsism cannot be true
It's not breathing, moving, eating, etc.roydop wrote:So what makes that body "dead"? ...
Because the alive body 'Joe Smith' is now dead but the dead body 'Joe Smith' has not yet decomposed or been cremated.If that body was called "Joe Smith", then why do we think "Joe Smith" isn't here anymore when the thing we call "Joe Smith" still exists?
Everything is just right and dandy.Something isn't right and the mind/ego will try to slough it off, and it'll probably work.
-
- Posts: 4410
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: if solipsism is true, we are all Neo's delusion
as do all seekers of knowledge
-Imp
-
- Posts: 4410
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Solipsism cannot be true
according to the bishop, it's god.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:57 amSorry I must have missed it?Impenitent wrote:I do not deny the possible existence of an external world, you simply asked me to give you an argument to demonstrate how language could be a totally internally created entity. ...Actually it's a proof of an other or do you claim that if it was possible to raise a baby without contact it would speak English or any other such language of your choice?I do deny your "proof" of said external world. ...
proof of an other inside your head is not empirically demonstrable...
So what is perceiving you if you are a solipsist?esse est percipi - Berkeley
-Imp
and what is on second.
-Imp
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
seekers of knowledge = navel gazers = wackadoodles
lint & lobotomies
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Solipsism cannot be true
Ah! The good old 'seer' I wondered how long it would be before that popped up. So which of your 'seers' are you talking about, the one that presumably we could call 'mind' or the mystical metaphysical one you've plastered over the noumena? If the former then I don't think you can see a 'mind' as I don't think it is a thing separate from the being of a body but what you can see is a living body and the difference between that and a dead one.Dontaskme wrote: Have you seen the seer of a dead body?
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Solipsism cannot be true
But I don't say there is an other inside my head( other than the one created by language which we call the 'I') but that inside my head I can think in a language that has constructs that for the life of me I can't understand I could create if I was the only thing around and as such I think I can logically deduce that there is an other who speaks my language out there who is not me.Impenitent wrote:proof of an other inside your head is not empirically demonstrable...
Then there is an other out there.according to the bishop, it's god. ...
I thought Watt was on second?and what is on second.
-Imp
Re: Solipsism cannot be true
roydop:
If that body was called "Joe Smith", then why do we think "Joe Smith" isn't here anymore when the thing we call "Joe Smith" still exists?
So now there appears to be two things (the body) and ( Joe Smith) so what knows it's dead? ...is it the body that knows it's dead, or is it Joe Smith that knows it's dead?Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:24 pmBecause the alive body 'Joe Smith' is now dead but the dead body 'Joe Smith' has not yet decomposed or been cremated.
And how can a single body be two things?
.
Re: Solipsism cannot be true
It is the knowledge/language that creates the I ...absence of knowledge what are you?Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:33 amBut I don't say there is an other inside my head( other than the one created by language which we call the 'I') but that inside my head I can think in a language that has constructs that for the life of me I can't understand I could create if I was the only thing around and as such I think I can logically deduce that there is an other who speaks my language out there who is not me.
A thought arises in you that says I am Arising_uk ..you know this from memory because someone else gave you your name and you took on that name, and that became your identity...but that identity has been superimposed upon your original not-knowing, this supposition has created a you ( I) ...that I was not yours...it's just an idea...and those other people outside of you are thoughts too...you cannot directly experience outside of you...you can only directly experience you ...you have no idea what you are except what the mind puts there via thought...do you see?
Thought creates the space between the thinker and his thoughts, and then tells himself, "I am looking at my thoughts'' ...but we all know this is a fiction, no thought has seen another thought, what does a thought look like? but a mirror image of that thought, an image of the imageless...do you see the dilemma?
So then we have to ask, where do thoughts of I come from? where did the very first ( I ) come from? ....this is the infinite regress problem...and that is why your knowledge can only inform you of your fictional character that you then believe to be real...prior to this believed fictional character.... what are you? are you even here/there?
As you can see, you are indeed self-creating...the only one around. Knowledge informs the illusory nature of reality.
Be yourself, the real fictional character as believed, nothing but dreamscape within dreamscape all the way down.
The picture is in the painter, the painter is not in the picture.
.
Re: Solipsism cannot be true
Notice I never mentioned two seers ..you did.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:29 amAh! The good old 'seer' I wondered how long it would be before that popped up. So which of your 'seers' are you talking about, the one that presumably we could call 'mind' or the mystical metaphysical one you've plastered over the noumena? If the former then I don't think you can see a 'mind' as I don't think it is a thing separate from the being of a body but what you can see is a living body and the difference between that and a dead one.Dontaskme wrote: Have you seen the seer of a dead body?
I said have you seen the seer of yourself the one you claim to be the seer seeing a dead body? ..if your body is dead, who is still alive seeing that dead body?
So if the mind is not separate from the body, and the mind cannot be seen by the body, that is saying it is the body that can see it is alive and dead?
If the body is dead like you assume, then how can that body know it is dead if it's dead?
Can you see that the body cannot know whether it is alive or dead?
So what knows?
.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Solipsism cannot be true
Neither as it is dead.Dontaskme wrote: So now there appears to be two things (the body) and ( Joe Smith) so what knows it's dead? ...is it the body that knows it's dead, or is it Joe Smith that knows it's dead? ...
Although I'm not saying that it is impossible for there to be a life after death for 'Joe Smith' as who knows but if there is then 'he'll' be a body with senses, memory and a language in an external world.
Depends what you mean by 'things' but essentially it can't.And how can a single body be two things?
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Solipsism cannot be true
My apologies, all this 'seerering' got to me. So just to be clear there is only one seer in your metaphysic. If so what am I seeing right now?Dontaskme wrote:Notice I never mentioned two seers ..you did. ...
That is not what I claim, what I claim is that if one is dead then I won't be seering.I said have you seen the seer of yourself the one you claim to be the seer seeing a dead body? ...
Depends upon if I've outlived all my friends or family or if I've died where someone can find me but generally in my culture the one who is still alive seeing my dead body will be the funeral director...if your body is dead, who is still alive seeing that dead body?
Er!? My opinion is that there is no 'mind' as a separate entity from the body.So if the mind is not separate from the body, and the mind cannot be seen by the body, ...
Wave your hands about in front of your face, pay attention to your breathing, feel the weight in your soles, etc, you are alive. Now of course you can say but what about coma patients and my answer would be that they are still alive as they are breathing but don't know it as they are not conscious. Of course some have said they were but just couldn't move.that is saying it is the body that can see it is alive and dead? ...
It can't as it is dead.If the body is dead like you assume, then how can that body know it is dead if it's dead?
No I can't, as I can see that it can see that it is alive but it certainly can't see that it is dead as it is dead.Can you see that the body cannot know whether it is alive or dead?
The living.So what knows?
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Solipsism cannot be true
You mean in the absence of language? If so I am a body with senses and memory in an external world.Dontaskme wrote:It is the knowledge/language that creates the I ...absence of knowledge what are you?
Not really, the thought arises that I am called Arising_uk here.A thought arises in you that says I am Arising_uk ...
Nope, I made that one up all by myself...you know this from memory because someone else gave you your name and you took on that name, ...
Nope, it became a part of my identity.and that became your identity...
Hold on! Are you saying there is an entity called 'mind'? Are there lots of them or only one in your metaphysic? If the latter what am I thinking right now?but that identity has been superimposed upon your original not-knowing, this supposition has created a you ( I) ...that I was not yours...it's just an idea...and those other people outside of you are thoughts too...you cannot directly experience outside of you...you can only directly experience you ...you have no idea what you are except what the mind puts there via thought...do you see?
I have a distinction between 'thoughting' and 'thinking', the latter is what one does with language and the internal voice, the former is what does in the absence of the latter and is made up of the remembered representations provided by the body's senses. So can I look at my thoughts? No if what is meant by the operations of the body's subsytems, i.e, the firing of the CNS, the passage of the chemicals of the endocrine system, etc but yes if I pay attention to the thoughts behind the thinks, i.e. I can think of me and then pay attention to the various thoughts that arise with that thinks.Thought creates the space between the thinker and his thoughts, and then tells himself, "I am looking at my thoughts'' ...but we all know this is a fiction, no thought has seen another thought, what does a thought look like? but a mirror image of that thought, an image of the imageless...do you see the dilemma?
Depends what you mean by 'I'?So then we have to ask, where do thoughts of I come from? where did the very first ( I ) come from?
If you mean the 'I' of language then the first was with the first two creatures that had memory and the means and necessity to communicate their experience of the external world.
It's only an infinite regress is you ignore the ground of the body.....this is the infinite regress problem... ...
I an a body with senses, memory and a language in an external world and 'here' is where this body is and 'there' is either an other body observing me or where I want to go next.and that is why your knowledge can only inform you of your fictional character that you then believe to be real...prior to this believed fictional character.... what are you? are you even here/there?
Then who are you talking to?As you can see, you are indeed self-creating...the only one around. ...
There is nothing illusory about there being an external world.Knowledge informs the illusory nature of reality. ...
Except you have a ground in this 'seer' of yours do you not?Be yourself, the real fictional character as believed, nothing but dreamscape within dreamscape all the way down. ...
They surely are as a painting, if done by a person, is an expression of the painters thoughts, an attempt to communicate them.The picture is in the painter, the painter is not in the picture.