Solipsism cannot be true

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7079
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Dontaskme » Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:03 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:21 am
Neither as it is dead.
There is no one in a body to know it is dead, you've established that so who is the entity that is in the body that knows that body is alive? that is suddenly not there anymore to know it is dead, who is this knower that knows it is alive but not dead? if this knower is alive how can that which knows it is alive also know it is dead? ...where does the knowing of aliveness come from ..if there is no knowing of death?

Can you not see that life and death are known concepts/knowledge that no body can know...they are illusions of knowledge.

Can the knower that knows it is alive but doesn't know it's dead even exist, how would the knower even know what aliveness is without knowing what it isn't?

How come there is a knower of life, but not a knower of death, what would being alive even mean to the knower? wouldn't that just mean that the only known knowledge is of life?
Arising_uk wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:21 am
Depends what you mean by 'things' but essentially it can't.
A thing is a concept known...can a concept know it is a concept, can that which is known know what is knowing that known?

.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: "why are you trying to convince other people solipsism is somehow wrong?"

Post by Speakpigeon » Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:32 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 3:42 pm
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).
Well, the threat from solipsistic folks is broadly in line with that of other people generally. And I don't spend time warning about the latter. So...
henry quirk wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 3:42 pm
"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.
Possibly but then we don't have the same notion either of knowledge or of existence.
All you know of other posters is what you see on your computer screen.
I could be an AI bot, for example. Would that be something you "know" to exist?
I could be God trying you.
I could be a chimp on the loose with a brain wave. I'm sure some people here would say they knew it.
EB

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7079
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Dontaskme » Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:32 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:21 pm
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.
The first person singular pronoun is the assumed 'knower'...where does the knower come from? if this KNOWER is not present at birth or death?

How does that which has no developed knowing suddendly become a knower? .. if you say someone else informed me, then remember, every other person you assume to exist as a separate knower also started their life as undeveloped not-knowing. . .so where did the very first knower of knowing come from? can you not see that knowledge is informing the illusory nature of a knower, in that the knower is born out of the knowledge that is simultaneously born out of the knower...both knower and known are one in the same instantaneous moment...not divided into knower and known.

That is the subject being discussed here.
will you witness your own death?
Arising_uk wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:21 pm
Eh!? How could I witness it? What I will be doing is experiencing dying.
To experience an event is to witness it in the same instant. There is no event without a witness present, and that which is witnessed cannot be separated out from what is witnessing it. Both witness and the witnessed is one unitary action. There's just no room for two here to make it's approach.

.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7079
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Dontaskme » Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:28 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:32 am
. So just to be clear there is only one seer in your metaphysic. If so what am I seeing right now?
Seeing or Knowing is just another metaphor for Awareness.

Awareness cannot know it knows or sees. Awareness is the knowing/seeing that cannot be seen or known.

Awareness is No One seeing and knowing.

No One is the ultimate subject (which cannot be objectified... except in words like 'No One'... which have no meaning) No One puts the meaning in no meaning.

You are me and I am you and no one is the only one here.

There are no 'others with their own separate awarenesses, only 'other perspectives', from which No One experiences.

Knowing any thing is what creates a knower. A centre in which the knowing is apparently housed.

The 'knower' cannot know that there is no knower..to know that..would need a knower.

There is only the knowing......The knower and the known emerge from within the split mind.They are conceptual overlays, the dream of separation.

Where did all those people in your dream last night come from....Where did they go?

The belief there are other Awarenesses is occuring here in your (our) No One's Awareness.. there is no other awarenesses out-there. There is no out-there separate from in-here. Here is the only ONE SPACE that is everywhere and nowhere all at once.

You are literally made out of the stuff you are appearing in...which is empty fulness.

Awareness is not-a-thing... it is No-thing and No thing can ever experience it's own absence..Or it's presence.

.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5170
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:43 pm

"Well, the threat from solipsistic folks is broadly in line with that of other people generally. And I don't spend time warning about the latter. So..."

You can do as you like. If you assess, for example, Joe, the fellow who sez 'fire freezes' and who lives his life in accordance with that notion, as 'harmless', that's fine by me. Me: he's a nutjob to be avoided and guarded against.

The solipsist is of a category along with Joe: someone dangerously out of touch with what's 'real'. Consider: Stan Solip, nice enough guy, who decides he's had enough of his imagination fuckin' with him. Stan hops in his car and mows down pedestrians. He's entitled to dispose of the contents of his head as he likes (he tells himself). If he's right: no harm, no foul. If he's wrong: much harm, large foul.


#

"Possibly but then we don't have the same notion either of knowledge or of existence."

True. I'm a kind of direct (or 'naive') realist, and you, well, I'm not sure how you'd describe yourself.

#

"All you know of other posters is what you see on your computer screen. I could be an AI bot, for example. Would that be something you "know" to exist? I could be God trying you. I could be a chimp on the loose with a brain wave. I'm sure some people here would say they knew it."

You could be a bot, God, a chimp: I never said I knew 'what' you are, only that I KNOW you exist. You could be five or six different people all sharing the Speakpigeon account, you could be V. Putin, you could be a lil old lady from Poughkeepsie, you could be an insane dwarf from Boca Raton. Your 'nature' (if you will) is a mystery; that 'you' (who- or what-ever you are) exist is not.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re:

Post by Speakpigeon » Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:23 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:43 pm
You can do as you like. If you assess, for example, Joe, the fellow who sez 'fire freezes' and who lives his life in accordance with that notion, as 'harmless', that's fine by me. Me: he's a nutjob to be avoided and guarded against. The solipsist is of a category along with Joe: someone dangerously out of touch with what's 'real'. Consider: Stan Solip, nice enough guy, who decides he's had enough of his imagination fuckin' with him. Stan hops in his car and mows down pedestrians. He's entitled to dispose of the contents of his head as he likes (he tells himself). If he's right: no harm, no foul. If he's wrong: much harm, large foul.
You could say the same of pretty much anyone, even the nice little old lady living next door.
henry quirk wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:43 pm
True. I'm a kind of direct (or 'naive') realist, and you, well, I'm not sure how you'd describe yourself.
I think, therefore I am?
henry quirk wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:43 pm
You could be a bot, God, a chimp: I never said I knew 'what' you are, only that I KNOW you exist. You could be five or six different people all sharing the Speakpigeon account, you could be V. Putin, you could be a lil old lady from Poughkeepsie, you could be an insane dwarf from Boca Raton. Your 'nature' (if you will) is a mystery; that 'you' (who- or what-ever you are) exist is not.
So I could just as well be a figment of your imagination. Same thing, really. So, where's the difference with a solipsist?
EB

Impenitent
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Impenitent » Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:37 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:33 am
Impenitent wrote:proof of an other inside your head is not empirically demonstrable...
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.

you still haven't proven an external world... you are "speaking" with entities that you believe exist outside your head... "their" actual location has not been demonstrated


according to the bishop, it's god. ...
Then there is an other out there.
and what is on second.

-Imp
I thought Watt was on second?
hey Abott!

-Imp

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5170
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

du-du-du-duplicate obliterated

Post by henry quirk » Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:43 pm

:robot:
Last edited by henry quirk on Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5170
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:45 pm

"You could say the same of pretty much anyone, even the nice little old lady living next door."

Indeed, and if the old crone starts up with the wacky shit there's gonna be a respectable distance kept by me, from her.

#

"I think, therefore I am?"

That's you? Well, Hello, Mr. Descartes!

#

"So I could just as well be a figment of your imagination. Same thing, really. So, where's the difference with a solipsist?"

No, as I say, I know myself well: my imagination doesn't work that way. The difference, bluntly: the solipsist is a nutjob; I'm not (or, at least, my nutjobbery is of a different strain).

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re:

Post by Speakpigeon » Fri Mar 29, 2019 9:05 am

henry quirk wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:45 pm
"You could say the same of pretty much anyone, even the nice little old lady living next door."
Indeed, and if the old crone starts up with the wacky shit there's gonna be a respectable distance kept by me, from her.
As long as you don't wack her as if a bad feeling.
henry quirk wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:45 pm
"I think, therefore I am?"
That's you?
Well... I think.
So, I think, therefore I am. So, yes, it's me.
henry quirk wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:45 pm
"So I could just as well be a figment of your imagination. Same thing, really. So, where's the difference with a solipsist?"
No, as I say, I know myself well: my imagination doesn't work that way. The difference, bluntly: the solipsist is a nutjob; I'm not (or, at least, my nutjobbery is of a different strain).
I gathered.
We all enjoy here our different strains.
EB

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7079
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Mar 29, 2019 9:18 am

Arising_uk wrote:
. So just to be clear there is only one seer in your metaphysic. If so what am I seeing right now?
Metaphysics belong to no one and everyone.

There is no I in you right now. There is only you without an object. aka (Pure Awareness)
Awareness doesn't see any thing. It is the seeing, and the thing is sees is no thing, except an artificial conceptual dream character appearance within inconcievable awareness...there is no thing there.

Awareness seeing from the perspective of a particual character as and through that CHARACTERS mind body mechanism...it appears the character is seeing ..but the character in and of itself sees nothing, it is the seen, seen by that which cannot be seen. AWARENESS is one unitary seeing action. Seer and seen are ONE.

Knowing oneself or awareness knowing itself requires a knower and it is projecting the quality of knowing of being of oneself to awareness.Pure awareness is prior to knowingness as knowingness is a byproduct and an abstraction of awareness.

That you believe I over here exist separate from you over there is a ''thought'' in you there. This one here doesn't exist ..it's only the thought in awareness over there that has created this one here and vice versa.
This unitary action works the same from every point of observation, this point here (same awareness) creates you over there via thought. Prior to the thought, you did not exist, thought here has created you there. Minus thought there is no here/there...thoughts are totally non-locatable...not confined to a body here or there. it's the split mind in action as one unitary action.
''Thought'' artifically divides what is everywhere and nowhere into here and there...there is no such division, because only the mind moves, and the mind is not a thing therefore no thing is actually moving.. just like a the movie on the blank screen appears to have moving images, no thing is actually going anywhere. Awareness is the screen...the mind then mistakes the images on the screen for reality, in truth there is no reality separate from the screen.


Uncreated Awareness is aware of every thought. But a thought, which is the created awareness cannot be aware of anything for one very good reason, thoughts cannot read other thoughts because a thought is an imaginary character like in a dream...it would be like a dream character being able to know it exists...not happening.


Kooky or what? :D


.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11988
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:48 am

Impenitent wrote:
you still haven't proven an external world... you are "speaking" with entities that you believe exist outside your head... "their" actual location has not been demonstrated
What 'proof' would be acceptable to you?

My point is not that I'm speaking to entities outside of me, for all I know they might not exist. My point is that inside my head I can think in a language with the internal voice, that language has constructs that for the life of me I cannot conceive how a single entity could create as what need would it have for them, this might even apply to language per se, because of this I think I can deduce that there is at least one other who is not me or not inside my head, since I can deduce this I can also deduce that there is some kind of a world external to me. I've yet to hear you or anyone address how it could be possible for such a language to exist if it was all just me? As what need would there be for such a thing.

Still, like I say, the best way to deal with the solipsist is to just keep punching them until they ask you to stop or fight back and then ask them what or who do they think they are asking or fighting?

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7079
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Mar 29, 2019 12:44 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:48 am

Still, like I say, the best way to deal with the solipsist is to just keep punching them until they ask you to stop or fight back and then ask them what or who do they think they are asking or fighting?
There is no such thing as a soliphist. Soliphism is an idea arising to no thing. This no thing doesn't deny the external world, for it's self-evident, to deny it would require something to make it not to be there, but since some thing is actually no thing.. no thing cannot make some thing disappear..it just ain't a happening.

.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11988
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Arising_uk » Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:05 am

Dontaskme wrote:There is no one in a body to know it is dead, ...
There never was someone 'in' a body in the first place, they are a body.
you've established that so who is the entity that is in the body that knows that body is alive? that is suddenly not there anymore to know it is dead, who is this knower that knows it is alive but not dead?
A body with senses, memory and a language in an external world.
Deep down you are a Dulaist when it comes to mind and body aren't you.
if this knower is alive how can that which knows it is alive also know it is dead? ...
It can't, it can just be dead.
...where does the knowing of aliveness come from ..if there is no knowing of death?
You know death by seeing it in others. You know you are alive by breathing, moving, thinking, thoughting, eating, etc.
Can you not see that life and death are known concepts/knowledge that no body can know...they are illusions of knowledge. ...
Can you not see that you are reifying life? If a body has senses, memory and a language it can know it is alive, it cannot know it is dead.
Can the knower that knows it is alive but doesn't know it's dead even exist, ...
Yes, you are exactly such a thing.
how would the knower even know what aliveness is without knowing what it isn't?
Are you saying you are not alive?
How come there is a knower of life, but not a knower of death, ...
You can know death, just find a dead body and hold it, smell it, taste it, see it. You can know you are alive, are you breathing? Are you moving? What do you think that is?
what would being alive even mean to the knower? ...
Eating, breathing, excreting, laughing, crying, etc, etc.
wouldn't that just mean that the only known knowledge is of life?
No, it would mean one of the things we know is that we are a living thing.
A thing is a concept known...can a concept know it is a concept, can that which is known know what is knowing that known?
Yes, you can have concepts of concepts if you wish.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11988
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Solipsism cannot be true

Post by Arising_uk » Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:24 am

Dontaskme wrote:Metaphysics belong to no one and everyone. ...
And?
There is no I in you right now. ...
I know, I am an 'I'.
There is only you without an object. aka (Pure Awareness)
No, there is me a body with senses, memory and a language in an external world.
Awareness doesn't see any thing. It is the seeing, and the thing is sees is no thing, except an artificial conceptual dream character appearance within inconcievable awareness...there is no thing there. ...
Ever stubbed your toe?
Awareness seeing from the perspective of a particual character as and through that CHARACTERS mind body mechanism... ...
"mind body mechanism"? There's that dualism again.
it appears the character is seeing ..but the character in and of itself sees nothing, it is the seen, seen by that which cannot be seen. AWARENESS is one unitary seeing action. Seer and seen are ONE. ...
You appear to have two seer's again?
Knowing oneself or awareness knowing itself requires a knower and it is projecting the quality of knowing of being of oneself to awareness.Pure awareness is prior to knowingness as knowingness is a byproduct and an abstraction of awareness. ...
Or its just simply being a body with senses, memory and language in an external world that allows it to talk, think, thought and describe what its like to be such a thing.
That you believe I over here exist separate from you over there is a ''thought'' in you there. This one here doesn't exist ..it's only the thought in awareness over there that has created this one here and vice versa. ...
Are you saying that when I don't think about you you disappear?
This unitary action works the same from every point of observation, this point here (same awareness) creates you over there via thought. Prior to the thought, you did not exist, thought here has created you there. ...
Do you have a bed-partner? How is it you don't disappear when they go to sleep?
Minus thought there is no here/there...thoughts are totally non-locatable...not confined to a body here or there. it's the split mind in action as one unitary action. ...
It's a split mind now is it? What do you mean by 'thought'? As you use it a lot but don't give a description of what you talk about.
''Thought'' artifically divides what is everywhere and nowhere into here and there...there is no such division, because only the mind moves, and the mind is not a thing therefore no thing is actually moving.. just like a the movie on the blank screen appears to have moving images, no thing is actually going anywhere. Awareness is the screen...the mind then mistakes the images on the screen for reality, in truth there is no reality separate from the screen. ...
So now you have a homunculus watching a screen?
Uncreated Awareness is aware of every thought. ...
So was 'God', why not just go back to believing in that? As you surely are a disabused theist.
But a thought, which is the created awareness cannot be aware of anything for one very good reason, thoughts cannot read other thoughts because a thought is an imaginary character like in a dream...it would be like a dream character being able to know it exists...not happening. ...
Thoughts can be communicated, its what language is primarily for.
Kooky or what? :D
If you mean your metaphysic then no not really. Its pretty old hat in Philosophy as its basically substance Monism and Idealism with, I suspect, a fair chunk of some gnu's westernized eastern religious mysticism.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests