What is the most convincing argument against solipsism?
>I'm a god mind floating in the void that thought up the entire universe
lel
>>908598
There is no point in using language if yours is the only mind.
>>908600
The world is way too oddly specific for me to have thought up.
Only way I'm gonna buy it is if someone else though up this shit, because I sure didn't.
>>908598
Even if you're all that exists, you still have to fucking pay your taxes.
>>908598
Solipsism depends on the idea of systematic, Cartesian-style doubting. An idea rightfully dismissed by Peirce:
>1. Some philosophers have imagined that to start an inquiry it was only necessary to utter a question whether orally or by setting it down upon paper, and have even recommended us to begin our studies with questioning everything! But the mere putting of a proposition into the interrogative form does not stimulate the mind to any struggle after belief. There must be a real and living doubt, and without this all discussion is idle.
>2. It is a very common idea that a demonstration must rest on some ultimate and absolutely indubitable propositions. These, according to one school, are first principles of a general nature; according to another, are first sensations. But, in point of fact, an inquiry, to have that completely satisfactory result called demonstration, has only to start with propositions perfectly free from all actual doubt. If the premisses are not in fact doubted at all, they cannot be more satisfactory than they are.
>3. Some people seem to love to argue a point after all the world is fully convinced of it. But no further advance can be made. When doubt ceases, mental action on the subject comes to an end; and, if it did go on, it would be without a purpose.
That's a pretty handsome gorilla
![ss-at-today-150628-10[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/UlZBQK3.jpg "ss-at-today-150628-10[1].jpg")
>>909031
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/asia/handsome-gorilla-shabani/
>>909047
10/10, would
>>908614
>>908987
>if I don't perceive it as useful then it's incorrect as a concept
Providing motive to ignore an idea =/= refuting said idea
>>909004
>Peirce
Isn't he begrudgingly a bit of a skeptic himself though? He openly states that even his "best method" of fixing beliefs is only best under certain circumstances and that others can preferred. Pierce inquires just so that he can have something good enough to hold on to. I agree that scientific inquiry is probably the best you can get, but it certainly doesn't erase doubt since you'll inevitably start with doubtable premises and therefore get doubtable conclusions. The fact that they're typically the hardest conclusions to doubt doesn't change that.
Its silly
Its not possible to disprove it, but it's not possible to prove it either. Therefore empiricism would probably be the best argument: I have no evidence I'm a mind floating in a void, therefore I cannot believe that I am a mind floating in a void.
Better philosophy through empiricism. Tell your friends.
>>908619
Maybe it was an evil demon deceiving you?
>>909562
Why it should be evil demon? Maybe reality is so bad that he was doing you a favor.
>>909098
Also: I have no evidence I'm not a mind floating in a void, therefore I cannot believe that I am not a mind floating in a void.
>>908598
Nothing. However, as it is worthless for every single practical purpose, it can be relegated to a footnote in the context of other philosophies.
>>909663
>worthless for every single practical purpose, it can be relegated to a footnote
As all philosophy is, amen.
>So apparently I made a misunderstanding.
But that misunderstanding is a misunderstanding that you made out of something I said, and that happened because I wasn't clear with my main point that cogito ergo sum is a lot of bullshit.
See, let's start this over.
I started with "What guarantee (...) eletronic impulses."
What I meant with this is that
1) Our brain functions on atoms, eletrons and, to some very limited degree, subparticles
2) Our thinking is a direct result of that
3) Unanimated objects like rocks, computer screens and planets are also made up of these same things
4) These unaminated objects don't think
These 4 premises are widely accepted as being true by most people on Earth.
However it makes no logical sense for them to all be true at the same time.
If rocks are made up of atoms and our thinking is a result of our brains being made up of atoms, then either rocks think or we don't think at all.
To wrap this up, I have two questions for you.
1) What exactly is thinking?
2) If thinking is merely a physical process like all others, then why is it so important?
>>909935
Do you have scientific evidence to back this claim?
>>909935
>>910026
>iconoclasm
do you two need a room?
>>910044
No attacking going on here. I just want to know if there is scientific evidence that all philosophy is worthless.
>>910085
I'm not him, but I'll give you that one and return another question; is there scientific evidence that science is useful? Can you prove, through science, that science is objectively good as opposed to something which simply fulfills the subjective needs of the user?
>>908598
Dontcha wish this gorilla was your bro? Puts that cyborg gorilla from "Congo" to shame.
>>909971
A compound is the sum of it's components materially, not characteristically. Salt is made out of sodium and chloride. However, it very clearly doesn't have the all the same visible properties of either. Pure sodium, for example, blows up in water, wheras salt can dissolve into it. You can combined multiple entities to create an emergent property which was present in neither of them individually.
>>908598
Why would your arrangement of neurons and neurotransmitters are the only arrangement of neurons and neurotransmitters to achieve consciousness. There is nothing to suggest that your particular brain is special in that regard.
