Can you prove solipsism true?

[Age]

It’s unfalsifiable. There is no way to test it, no way to prove or disprove it.

So, WHY do you start a thread with the topic title, 'Can you prove solipsism true?', if 'it' IS NOT FALSIFIABLE and there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to prove 'it'?

How do you, personally, define 'solipsism', exactly?

When this has been answered, then I might be able to show you how you might be able to prove 'that' true.

However based on the evidence it doesn’t seem like it’s likely true. Though if someone seriously believed it I wouldn’t be able to argue them out of it, because there really isn’t a way to know for sure.

It really just boils down to what you believe, that’s it.

EXACTLY, and it does NOT what one BELIEVES. While someone is BELIEVING some 'thing' is true, then even ACTUAL LOGICAL and EMPIRICAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF and Truth can NOT and will NOT be SEEN nor HEARD by 'that one'.

The POWER of BELIEF is just far TO STRONG.

[Age]

It’s unfalsifiable. There is no way to test it, no way to prove or disprove it.

Then stop asking stupid questions then.

And bye the way, questions can only arise to the sense of a separate self.

Have 'you', the human being known here as "dontaskme", NEVER ASKED 'you' A QUESTION?

WHY is it IMPOSSIBLE TO 'you' for 'one' to ASK "them" 'self' A QUESTION?

That sense of separation does not exist,

BUT 'the sense of' 'separation' exists, although 'separation', itself, may well not.

Even 'you', "dontaskme", HAVE a 'sense of separation'. As can be CLEARLY SEEN in the WAY you SPEAK and WRITE here.

you even said so yourself, there is no such separation between the mind and body. Or the awareness of the thing being awared.

[Age]

why would a solipsist want to prove anything to anyone else?

-Imp

It’s complicated, I’m not a solipsist but it kinda bothers me that I can’t disprove it. You can only believe it so or not.

To prove that, REALLY, nothing can be KNOWN, for sure, except for the 'thoughts' existing, which themselves could ALL be, in a sense, False or Wrong, then this is VERY SIMPLE and EASY to do.

But I will just wait to see what 'solipsism' is anyway.

[Maia]

Do any actual Solipsists really believe it?

[Dontaskme]

Have 'you', the human being known here as "dontaskme", NEVER ASKED 'you' A QUESTION?

Parrot on repeat...yes, I have asked questions, because there is here, the illusory sense of separation arising, it is known to happen that there is a sense of I exist, and yes, this I is known, this I is a concept known in this illusory conception. And yet it is also known that a concept known, knows nothing..there is nothing knowing every concept as and when it arises, you are this knowing.

WHY is it IMPOSSIBLE TO 'you' for 'one' to ASK "them" 'self' A QUESTION?

It's not impossible, you mentioned the word impossible, not me.. it's very much possible only insofar as the illusion of separation is sensed to exist, that's how illusion and imagination works, there is belief, without which, there is nothing known to be happening.

That sense of separation does not exist,

BUT 'the sense of' 'separation' exists, although 'separation', itself, may well not.

Ok, I'll parrot this again, for the umpteenth time, becsuse I know you like to hear me repeating myself to you, yes, the sense of separation does apparently arise, but it is illusory.

Even 'you', "dontaskme", HAVE a 'sense of separation'. As can be CLEARLY SEEN in the WAY you SPEAK and WRITE here.

Well obviously I know that, but I'm also at the same time saying it's illusory, but you don't seem to want to settle on that commonly known knowledge, and is why you keep bringing the subject up over and over again, for what reason or purpose, I have no idea.

[Age]

Do any actual Solipsists really believe it?

I would, REALLY, love to be brought into 'the group' of what the 'it' word here refers to, EXACTLY.

[Age]

Have 'you', the human being known here as "dontaskme", NEVER ASKED 'you' A QUESTION?

Parrot on repeat...yes,

By 'yes' you mean you have NEVER ASKED 'you' A QUESTION BEFORE, right?

I have asked questions,

BUT TO WHO, EXACTLY?

Have 'you' ASKED 'you' QUESTIONS, BEFORE?

because there is here, the illusory sense of separation arising, it is known to happen that there is a sense of I exist, and yes, this I is known, this I is a concept known in this illusory conception. And yet it is also known that a concept known, knows nothing..there is nothing knowing every concept as and when it arises, you are this knowing.

Okay, if you say so. But there was NO need to say.

WHY is it IMPOSSIBLE TO 'you' for 'one' to ASK "them" 'self' A QUESTION?

It's not impossible, you mentioned the word impossible, not me..

OF COURSE I did. I mentioned 'it' BECAUSE you SAID and CLAIMED, 'questions can ONLY arise to the sense of a separate self.' Which would literally MEAN, It IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ASK one's 'self' A QUESTION.

it's very much possible only insofar as the illusion of separation is sensed to exist, that's how illusion and imagination works, there is belief, without which, there is nothing known to be happening.

But 'this' has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with what you SAID and CLAIMED, to which I ASKED 'you' A QUESTION.

That sense of separation does not exist,

BUT 'the sense of' 'separation' exists, although 'separation', itself, may well not.

Ok, I'll parrot this again, for the umpteenth time, becsuse I know you like to hear me repeating myself to you, yes, the sense of separation does apparently arise, but it is illusory.

What do you mean by 'the sense of separation' APPARENTLY ARISES?

If 'a sense' IS so-called ILLUSORY, then what IS, ACTUALLY, REAL?

Even 'you', "dontaskme", HAVE a 'sense of separation'. As can be CLEARLY SEEN in the WAY you SPEAK and WRITE here.

Well obviously I know that, but I'm also at the same time saying it's illusory,

I am NOT sure HOW 'the sense' of some 'thing' could be ILLUSORY.

'Thoughts' are the ONLY 'thing' that can be KNOWN, FOR SURE, and if 'thoughts' did NOT come from at least 'the sense of some 'thing', then how could 'thoughts' come to exist

you don't seem to want to settle on that commonly known knowledge,

When you CLAIM that, let us say, 'the sense of daylight', for example, IS JUST ILLUSORY, then what would you then say, CAUSES 'that sense'?

Also, to WHO is the ALLEGED 'commonly known knowledge' that 'the sense of thing' IS ILLUSORY.

and is why you keep bringing the subject up over and over again, for what reason or purpose, I have no idea.

But I do NOT bring 'the subject' up. I ONLY QUESTION and/or CHALLENGE 'you' on what 'you' SAY and CLAIM here, "dontaskme".

[Iwannaplato]

Do any actual Solipsists really believe it?

If they're actual solipsists.
And some psychopaths and narcissists act like it's the case.

[Skepdick]

Do any actual Solipsists really believe it?

If they're actual solipsists.
And some psychopaths and narcissists act like it's the case.

What if they aren't actual psychopaths and narcissists?

[Darkneos]

http://bc.upjp2.edu.pl/Content/5621/35_ ... odnym3.pdf

I was wondering if this is the case after looking at the paper above. It seems to just say that if someone is a solipsist then you can’t argue them out of it because their view is consistent and not illogical but I’m not entirely sure. I think that later on he does prove it true and that’s what bugs me.

Everywhere I have asked I get the same answer that it’s impossible because you can’t get outside your perception of the world so you’re unable to confirm it right or wrong. But I’m wondering if there is some secret reasoning that someone could do.

I would rather it be truly impossible so I can leave it behind because it’s had a massively negative impact on my life and relationships with others.

Thinking about the issue is not going to help. If this idea of solipsism managed to bring down the quality of your life, there are other problems that need to be taken care of: things like your social life, family issues, past trauma, meaningful work and so on. You could see the ability of a philosophical concept to drag you down as a side effect and not the main problem. And in a sense it is a distraction and seems, I say seems, easier to deal with. But actually getting into the feelings related to those other issues is vastly more important. If they are dealt with you'll find that the solipsisism might interest you intellectually, like a puzzle, but will not get its hooks into your emotional life. Counseling, therapy, changes in the basic conditions of your life, that's where the solutions lie.

You might have a point. I find that whenever I get into topics like this it’s usually a distraction from other things in my life and while I insist that solving this is what’s going to bring me peace it never does. I just end up moving to something else.

[Darkneos]

Questions can arise without a sense of separate self (not o mention you can’t even use the term right as that’s not what separate self means). You don’t really need a sense of self to ask questions.

Asking questions to other people implies there is the sense of other people existing apart from you, meaning to you, there is the sense of other people existing who are separate from you. If that sense of separation did not exist, and wasn't there, why would you be asking the question, and to whom? if you say I am asking my self, then that implies there are two of you...One who doesn't know something, and One who does know the something the other One didn't know. The absurdity of this behavior is present only when there is the sense of I am a separate self, this separation is illusory.

I said self, mind, consciousness are emergent properties of the brain, obviously they aren’t separate from the brain but the way emergence works is that such things have properties that are unlike what enables them.

To claim there is a self, mind, consciousness that can emerge from the brain is the same as saying there appears to be a sense of a separate self apart from the brain, where the brain releases a sense of I that can claim I have a brain..and yet no I ever occupied or emerged from the brain, the sense of self was always just the brain braining, as and through brain activity.

This sense of I or self or my consciousness, is all illusory.

And awared isn’t a word so your last sentence is meaningless.

Awared is a word.

I am finding it quite amusing why you would act so pedantic over a simple word..look it up, it's a word with meaning.

At this point it’s just easier to call you stupid.

I know you are but what am I ?

QUESTION: Can you prove solipsism true?

ANSWER:

It’s unfalsifiable. There is no way to test it, no way to prove or disprove it.

However based on the evidence it doesn’t seem like it’s likely true. Though if someone seriously believed it I wouldn’t be able to argue them out of it, because there really isn’t a way to know for sure.

It really just boils down to what you believe, that’s it.

And there is the proof that there is indeed arising here, the sense of separate self....and that you have to answer your own question, as if there were two of you..one who didn't know, and one who did know what the other you did not.

Awared is not a word, every search shows it’s either a misspelling or doesn’t exist. Now I know you’re just an idiot.

Also solipsism has nothing to do with a separate self but rather other minds. If by separate self you mean other minds then yeah. It’s wondering if I’m the only one with an internal life or if other people are just robots walking and talking just like people but being effectively zombies.

To claim there is a self, mind, consciousness that can emerge from the brain is the same as saying there appears to be a sense of a separate self apart from the brain, where the brain releases a sense of I that can claim I have a brain..and yet no I ever occupied or emerged from the brain, the sense of self was always just the brain braining, as and through brain activity.

This sense of I or self or my consciousness, is all illusory.

No it’s not. Self is an emergent process of the brain same with mind and consciousness, that’s fact. It is the brain doing its thing sure but that’s not an illusion. Again you’re just an idiot who doesn’t understand emergence, or neuroscience for that matter.

Your first paragraph just shows an ignorance of the problem of solipsism.

[Darkneos]

Have 'you', the human being known here as "dontaskme", NEVER ASKED 'you' A QUESTION?

Parrot on repeat...yes, I have asked questions, because there is here, the illusory sense of separation arising, it is known to happen that there is a sense of I exist, and yes, this I is known, this I is a concept known in this illusory conception. And yet it is also known that a concept known, knows nothing..there is nothing knowing every concept as and when it arises, you are this knowing.

WHY is it IMPOSSIBLE TO 'you' for 'one' to ASK "them" 'self' A QUESTION?

It's not impossible, you mentioned the word impossible, not me.. it's very much possible only insofar as the illusion of separation is sensed to exist, that's how illusion and imagination works, there is belief, without which, there is nothing known to be happening.

That sense of separation does not exist,

BUT 'the sense of' 'separation' exists, although 'separation', itself, may well not.

Ok, I'll parrot this again, for the umpteenth time, becsuse I know you like to hear me repeating myself to you, yes, the sense of separation does apparently arise, but it is illusory.

Even 'you', "dontaskme", HAVE a 'sense of separation'. As can be CLEARLY SEEN in the WAY you SPEAK and WRITE here.

Well obviously I know that, but I'm also at the same time saying it's illusory, but you don't seem to want to settle on that commonly known knowledge, and is why you keep bringing the subject up over and over again, for what reason or purpose, I have no idea.

Can believe you’re repeating something I already proved you wrong with the last thread. Even Age knows you’re full of shit.

You really just want an audience to clap for your “wisdom” huh? That’s why you never actually reply when questioned.

[Skepdick]

http://bc.upjp2.edu.pl/Content/5621/35_ ... odnym3.pdf

I was wondering if this is the case after looking at the paper above. It seems to just say that if someone is a solipsist then you can’t argue them out of it because their view is consistent and not illogical but I’m not entirely sure. I think that later on he does prove it true and that’s what bugs me.

Everywhere I have asked I get the same answer that it’s impossible because you can’t get outside your perception of the world so you’re unable to confirm it right or wrong. But I’m wondering if there is some secret reasoning that someone could do.

I would rather it be truly impossible so I can leave it behind because it’s had a massively negative impact on my life and relationships with others.

You can't prove it true any more than you can prove it false.

This goes for pretty much all philosophical positions. Internal consistency gets you coherence. It doesn't get you correspondence.

[Darkneos]

http://bc.upjp2.edu.pl/Content/5621/35_ ... odnym3.pdf

I was wondering if this is the case after looking at the paper above. It seems to just say that if someone is a solipsist then you can’t argue them out of it because their view is consistent and not illogical but I’m not entirely sure. I think that later on he does prove it true and that’s what bugs me.

Everywhere I have asked I get the same answer that it’s impossible because you can’t get outside your perception of the world so you’re unable to confirm it right or wrong. But I’m wondering if there is some secret reasoning that someone could do.

I would rather it be truly impossible so I can leave it behind because it’s had a massively negative impact on my life and relationships with others.

You can't prove it true any more than you can prove it false.

This goes for pretty much all philosophical positions. Internal consistency gets you coherence. It doesn't get you correspondence.

Yeah that’s something else I was told when I asked people over the years. Nothing is truly certain and thats not the type of truth you should be concerned about.

Also someone told me philosophy isn’t really about proof so much as likelihood and plausibility, and some other things. To paraphrase them “sure solipsism is possible but give the evidence around us is it likely”? To that I would say no. Given my interactions with the world I don’t have a reason to believe solipsism is true, though that’s not a guarantee (though nothing is).

Nevermind found it:

Now, that said, a lot of the time philosophy isn't about proving or disproving things. Rather, it's about the intuitive force and appeal of certain positions, the costs that come with them, and the evidence around them. Maybe solipsism can't be proven, but given our experiences is solipsism likely? Does it fit naturally within our metaphysical positions? What does it generate to?

And I agree with that.

And unless there is anything meaningfully different about a solipsism world and a regular one then they are effectively the same. So even if solipsism were to be true it wouldn’t matter.

[Skepdick]

http://bc.upjp2.edu.pl/Content/5621/35_ ... odnym3.pdf

I was wondering if this is the case after looking at the paper above. It seems to just say that if someone is a solipsist then you can’t argue them out of it because their view is consistent and not illogical but I’m not entirely sure. I think that later on he does prove it true and that’s what bugs me.

Everywhere I have asked I get the same answer that it’s impossible because you can’t get outside your perception of the world so you’re unable to confirm it right or wrong. But I’m wondering if there is some secret reasoning that someone could do.

I would rather it be truly impossible so I can leave it behind because it’s had a massively negative impact on my life and relationships with others.

You can't prove it true any more than you can prove it false.

This goes for pretty much all philosophical positions. Internal consistency gets you coherence. It doesn't get you correspondence.

Yeah that’s something else I was told when I asked people over the years. Nothing is truly certain and thats not the type of truth you should be concerned about.

Also someone told me philosophy isn’t really about proof so much as likelihood and plausibility, and some other things. To paraphrase them “sure solipsism is possible but give the evidence around us is it likely”? To that I would say no. Given my interactions with the world I don’t have a reason to believe solipsism is true, though that’s not a guarantee (though nothing is).

Nevermind found it:

Now, that said, a lot of the time philosophy isn't about proving or disproving things. Rather, it's about the intuitive force and appeal of certain positions, the costs that come with them, and the evidence around them. Maybe solipsism can't be proven, but given our experiences is solipsism likely? Does it fit naturally within our metaphysical positions? What does it generate to?

And I agree with that.

And unless there is anything meaningfully different about a solipsism world and a regular one then they are effectively the same. So even if solipsism were to be true it wouldn’t matter.

That's not a problem with solipsism in particular. It's a problem with all philosophy in general.

It's a quarrel about the use of adjectives and the criteria in question. e.g you are asking whether there are any meaningful differences between X and Y.

And the standard responses is: Of course there is a very long list of differences between X and Y, but which difference do you consider "meaningful"? What is your criterion for meaningfulness?

Followed up with: Is the difference between truth and falsehood meaningful or meaningless?

The answer to all such questions is a matter of values, not facts.