You have 1 minute to disprove solipsism.
>>7419531
fuck you
>>7419531
I find it aesthetically displeasing and choose to reject it.
>but that's solipsism!
Deal with it, nerds.
Without other people all you'd be is a floating consciousness without an identity.
>>7419531
How can I disprove solipsism if my only friends are books
>>7419531
Because I know in my heart that there is a god in heaven, who sent his only son to die for my sins. I don't have enough faith to believe there's nothing but my own brain :^)
Solipsism is correct but only locally.
As in, there's literally a pocket universe that exists only because you also exist, and ceases to exist when you cease to exist.
>>7419538
u kno jack shit boye
it doesn't matter op
If only you existed, then because of Bell's theorem physical interactions would necessarily be non-local, thus forcing determinism, and you wouldn't have free will, which you obviously do have.
>>7419531
foreign language
Solipsism can't be stated coherently. There's nothing to refute.
>>7419566
you can start by proving to me that you exist
>>7419548
*tips hat*
>>7419534
>you
nicely done.
Here is one hand,
here is your mother.
>>7419573
As far as you're concerned, I am words on a screen, these words on the screen being a collection of your sense perceptions. It's up to you to extrapolate the existence of a human behind the words based on background information you have about the world (IE the way your sense perceptions organize themselves).
>>7419531
Solipsism sounds awfully shitty
>can never truly connect with others since they're 'durr apparitions of my imaaaaagination'
>life still has rules you gotta follow unless you wanna be your own universe inside a cell
>lmao nobody rly unnerstans me
>awful lonely up in there
>things still hurt when they hit you
solipsism relies on the reality principle which collapses under lacanian psychoanalysis.
in psychoanalysis, solipsism is a symptom of neurosis.
>>7419573
I don't even have to. I don't have to prove anything until you've stated your own position (solipsism) in a coherent way.
You have yet to do that. As far as I'm concerned, no one has ever done that. There's nothing to refute.
But, for the sake of argument, is there any reason why I couldn't exist? Do you hold that it's literally impossible for anything beyond yourself to exist?
Question 2: What is your definition of "self"?
Question 3: What is your definition of "existence"?
Eagerly awaiting your reply.
UNFALSIFIABLE CRAP like INTELLIGENT design.
/end-bread.
>>7419542
locally seems like an odd word.
english fucking sucks for philosophy
>>7419577
tips jesus christ
then eats him
then shits him out
then feeds him to you
tips my penis up
>>7419600
K but can you disprove it
If you're interested in solipsism, you might enjoy this paper, OP: http://individual.utoronto.ca/benj/ae.pdf
The writing gets pretty technical, but you can still understand his basic point from the first few paragraphs, and I think his picture of consciousness is pretty much correct.
>>7419563
I did it in like one second and no one even replied
>>7419563
underrated post
>>7419611
I'll pray for you, brother.
>>7419531
If solipsism were true my life would be a lot less shitty
>>7419640
amen, but get the little girls to pray for me
Nothing exists, so it makes no difference either way.
>>7419675
Things (in the plural) definitely exist.
>>7419675
I think therefore I am.
>>7419684
it's consciousness, a permanent ever changing I. Not "I" at all, but consciousness.
>>7419675
The existence of nothing does not preclude the existence of something; really, the existence of nothing depends on the existence of something.
>>7419690
what does this even mean
>>7419725
there is consciousness in all being, you are consciousness, you are "I". I has been misused to pertain to a fixed being or base of consciousness, "I" is not, it is ever destroyed and ever created anew, but this does not mean that you ever cease to exist as consciousness, just that your consciousness, or "I", is never the same, but is always there in some form or other.
>>7419737
To whom? Myself? What would that prove?
>>7419764
I wish, consciousness can arbitrarily be divided into in-itself and for-itself, in short, the movement between the two causes consciousness to dissolve and reform. Read more.
Why would I disprove what I know to be true. Nice try me
why are you conscious of one body and not others? it is impossible to disprove.
>>7419531
>disprove the unfalsifiable
If solipsism is true does that mean I created Hamlet, Ulysses, Gravity's Rainbow, Twin Peaks, Seinfeld, Illmatic, and all other art ever? I'm a genius m8 this is great.
>>7419794
>Read more.
So are you just regurgitating, our have you formed your own opinion?
>>7419874
>Read more.
It's a link.
If solipsism were true I wouldn't have to explain it.
>How much time do I have left?
>>7419764
nice nigger meme
You're a human being, brah. No need to prove the external world when you realise that you are in the midst of it.
As for other minds, at least I know that you are wrong.
>>7419800
I almost got you. Dang.
>>7419873
why did you make twin peaks suck halfway through season 2
>>7419531
you cannot control everything that happens to you. oops. solipsism is shit
Why, is John Green a Solipist?
>>7419606
Good post. I find "sonderous" moments mind boggling. I have trouble picturing myself in someone else's background. I also have trouble trying to figure out how my cat responds to its name though. I'm pretty sure I'm retarded.
It's unfalsifiable.
>>7419922
Cause that cameraman in the mirror had to be worked into the story.
Solipsism asks the wrong question
>>7419531
Kant already did that.
>>7419537
i can be your friend anon-kun
The simultaneous existence of 4chan and John Green is a paradox in a solipsistic world.
Pretty easy to do with a simple experiment.
Take the person that you would like to prove exists outside of your mind and put them in a room with paper and pencil. Tell them to draw a scene which you yourself would have never seen in your life, and have a third party watch them while they do it.
Then have the third party add one color of their choosing to the corner of piece of paper with the drawing. If that color is green, they don't exist.
>>7420022
Wait what?
>>7419675
Nothing doesn't "exist"
>>7420122
"Nothing" doesn't exist
>>7419531
Hume's explanation of simple and complex impressions and ideas, friend.
>>7420131
"Nothing" doesn't "exist".
>>7420022
wut
>>7420022
I think you mean true pink, friend.
>>7419531
Okay
Let's start with Descartes' cogito ergo sum. I don't buy it. "I think therefore I am" presupposes its conclusion, using circular logic (how can I think if we haven't established that I am?), as well as assuming that it is me who is thinking, and assuming that causality is true. So let's regress to a far less controversial stance: "There is a thought". This thought thinks itself, but this thought also evolves and changes and exists in various states, therefore, there must be interactions between this thought and outside forces or objects, if outside forces or objects exist, then solipsism cannot be true.
Shit rigour, but that's the best I can do with 52 seconds.
>>7420167
it thinks therefore it does stuff
>>7419531
Skepticism, I have no way of knowing that a person can function without thought, but I do know (through myself) that they can.
>>7420167
>how can I think if I haven't established that I am
Because the world works according to itself, rather than the whimsy of your autism.
It can be said that man thinks, and only a fool would argue against it. One of the presuppositions of thought is being. That's it. Thought is, therefore being must be. It's an example of a kind of proof, people just read all kinds of bullshit into it cos its famous and sounds deep
Inherent disorder is contrary to myself, the way I define myself. I realize this breeds hair splitting where we try to determine if will is actually a part of self or something the self just craves. If "I" am the only thing that exists, then "I" am not coherently constructed because of outside chaos. The case could be made that we are all parts of another self, but the universally understood concept of self does not exist in the first place. Philosophy is pretty much intellectual masturbation.
Are you implying that if it can't be disproved then it must be true? Because that's a fallacy, my friend.
>>7420432
Only I get to say "my friend," my friend.
>>7420447
fuck off 18 year old brat
you ain't nothing
you ain't nothing
>>7420449
That hurts my feelings, friend. Please apologize...friend.
I don't see why the perception of my own existence would be less valid than that of others. What makes them so different? That I'm the one feeling it, that's it? What's telling me I'm not just as much of an illusion as everything else?
>>7419531
You can't disprove solipsism. Not even Wittgenstien's privation of language argument is a deathblow, just a good sway towards one direction - the scepticism still holds however.
The absurd thing about solipsism, is when someone else assumedly tries to explain it to you. Likewise, when you do so, the fictional or real person assumedly displays or holds the same reaction.
It's a selfish and egoistic argument that only works in private. Idealism is, while not necessarily more correct, a more life-affirming philosophy to take on instead.
>>7420609
>Idealism is, while not necessarily more correct, a more life-affirming philosophy to take on instead.
solipsism is an idealism
>>7419531
Anonymous Thu Oct 15 14:07:14 2015 No.7237589
Quoted by: >>7237591 >>7237902
>>7237435
>>Are these objections wrong /lit/?
>>7237435
>Are these objections wrong /lit/?
first, philosophy is asking ''why things are such as there are'', this is the mediocre root.
If there must be a question, it is the question of why asking questions.
Second, you should question your prejudices against solipsism.
Solipsism is not refutted by the imagination, but by the life itself.
Third, R. distinguishes between the imagination and the reason. The reason for the rationalist is supposed to be more ordered than the imagination. Of course, not two rationalists agrees on what things they see an order in. The philosophy is about the discourse, but the rules of the discourse are personal. some statements will be called argument by the person already-persuaded by the statements, the persons who are not persuaded by the statement will say that it is not an argument, but only a statement.
All these rationalists choose to forget that what they call the reason is a one part of the imagination that they choose to call the reason. this part of the imagination is precisely what they consider intuitive, to the point of being baffled when other persons tell them that their intuitive statements is not shared by others. Hence philosophy.Secondly, the rationalist is a realist: he has faith in the reality. Of course, he has no idea what reality is, but if he can imagine it, the reality must exist (according to him). he then proceeds to seek a vocabulary (absolute, causation, necessity, god, proof, ontology, essence, morality...), some rules of inference, some statements intuitive to him and reach, with a few hypotheses, a conclusion which is the statement attesting some events that claims to have witnessed.
He attempts to persuade others that he is spot on....
The rationalist believes thus that whatever his little contrived system of logic and causation relates to, if not matches, the empirical world.
Since the causation is done not by the imagination, but by what he calls the reason (that he built piece by piece), his causation is supposed to be compelling, presicely because the hypotheses leading the conclusions tells something about the world.
The rationalist has not of course proved that his little sequences of statements, each statement being tied to its neighbors by the rules of deductions (rules seen as intuitive only by their rationalist creator), makes him right, that is to say that his little sequence:
-is unique
-is indeed tied to the empirical world
-gives what he calls knowledge about the world (he has no idea what knowledge).
if even he is right, he has still the need to find a method to communicate his knowledge.
>>7420928
the rationlist calls absurd any statement that does not fit in some causation of his.
Of course, what he calls absurd is nothing but something that he does not like. but if he says this, he looses instantly the fantasied power that he tries to gain in order to persuade others that he is right. (he has no idea what right means, besides a pure fantasy.)
The rationalist also wonders why his little deductions are sometimes not empirically verified....
he appears raped and deprimed when he cannot find another explanation whose conclusion is the event that undermined his previous deductions.
The first thing that the mind does (once it is trained to do so, since apparently there are cultures who do not think in these terms) is to cast everything in terms of space and time, which brings the problems of the induction and the realtivism.
The rationlist does not wish to tame the mind, to leave a place for some degree of conciousness. In fact, the rationlist does not even know that he can tame is mind (stop thinking).
you see that the rationalism fails to understand that his deliriums are not connected to the world; the products of the mind are disconnected from the world.
this kills the rationlist man.
What is the solipsism ?
One individual is a solipsist when he thinks that he is more alive than the others, who could themselves be more alive than the animals, which could themselves be more alive than the plants, which could themselves be more alive than the stones.
A solipsist is already a realist: he thinks that there is him and some stuff that are not him, precisely since he cannot feel the other stuff like he feels whatever he believes is his self.
he can say that he has no recollection of him creating the dead stuff, but then he acknowledges that, using his mind, his deliriums, there is him-now plus some him-past who still influences the him-now in heavy ways through the dead stuff, whereas the him-now is clearly powerless to change the dead stuff which was created by the him-past.
For, Worse for him, he cannot control the dead stuff. of course, he notices too that he cannot control himself. His body changes and he cannot control his mind either. he has no idea why he thinks this way or another, why he has these tastes, why he said these words instead of others.... everything seems to change and he does not like him, for some guy who is supposed to be the most alive.
>>7420932
So he controls nor the dead stuff, nor really himself, even though he thinks that there is a self. But then it is a self which is hardly controllable...
So the last step for him is to reject the dichotomy object-subject. the dead stuff is not less there/dead than him. the dead stuff is now plated on what he called, in his realist era, the senses. Now, instead of saying that some dead cold air felt on his living arms activates his nerves, he says that there is a the perception ''of the air'', that it is cold, he notices the mind bringing him the usual deliriums about essence, reality, about future, past, present, warmer places to be and so on, but then he understand that his whole being is nothing but a spectre of existences, from what he called the dead stuff, to the deepest conciouness, which is not conciouness of something, but just conciouness. (it is better to call this one existence).
this kills the solipsistic man. What he acknowledges is that there exists, but nothing can be said (through the imagination/language) and nothing can be perceived more, nor less, than the existence. What remains once whatever self was imagined by the mind was abandonned by some degree of conciousness, is a pure existence/deepest consciousness.
Only the perception and the reason, used not as an absolute, to be able to describe, not speculate on speculated causes, can kill solipsism. thus far, not a single scientist can provide an experiment that refute solipsism.
>>7419602
keep beggin that question there, senpai
>>7419563
How even
Is this a meme
>>7419531
empathy exists.
>>7419606
Self, personality, reason, free will, etc. can all be called self-contained illusions by the solipsist, along with the supposed outer world and its systems. Whether you're aware of, or understand with reason, or are able to manipulate, all the things within yourself at any given point, doesn't matter. The only irreducible and undeniable thing is the feeling of sentience, the blank phenomenon of subjective being/experience. Everything else is written on this, and might as well be hallucinatory, schizophrenic trickery. The argument isn't that non-solipsism is impossible, just that solipsism is possible, forcing an arbitrary choice to believe in things beyond the immanent.
>>7419531
>disprove
Solipsism cannot be proven in the first place, so there is no need to disprove it. The question is unanswerable, invalid, and retarded as fuck.
>>7419531
Who cares? Pragmatic principle. I'm just going to act as if I'm free.
If everything is just a reality of my own creation, I don't know that and it doesn't change anything. If I'm a part of someone else's manufactured reality, my proving or disproving of solipsism is contingent on whatever their reality forces me to do.
So, it's better to just forget it because it doesn't change anything either way. I'm just going to act as if I'm a free agent and that all of you ought to, because why not?
>>7420924
Idealism is that life is a mental construct. It also allows for other people to be having the same mental construct, independently of you. Berkley and Avicenna are good examples of this kind of interweaving of perspective - Kant himself was a transcendental idealist.
>>7421058
I don't think you've shown that solipsism is possible.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but solipsism is just the belief that nothing exists but the self.
I have to ask, if the only irreducible and undeniable thing is the "feeling of sentience," and the very notion of existence is a"self-contained illusion," then how is it cogent to claim that the self exists? Can you reformulate your statement of solipsism so that it is cogent? If not, you've failed to show that solipsism is possible.
I'll also note that "the feeling of sentience" is not clearly defined. It's a totally redundant term (could something not sentient be said to have feelings at all?).
Also, the "feeling of sentience" isn't a meaningful touchstone for what is or is not in existence. After all, you lose the feeling of sentience every time you sleep. If the feeling of sentience can cease to exist (as it does during sleep), and nothing but the feeling of sentience can be verified to exist, then according to you, nothing exists while you sleep. Which invites the question: how is there continuity between the feeling of sentience before you sleep and the feeling of sentience when you wake up?
Final question: is "the feeling of sentience" different from the self? Because if it is, than something other than the self exists. But, if the feeling of sentience is identical with the self, we go back to the previous question: how can there be continuity between the moment when the feeling of sentience ends and when it begins again (i.e., the transition from wakefulness to sleep and back again)?
>>7421893
"[nothing] doesn't exist"
I'm writing for an audience
/thread
>>7419531
One minute?
I only need one word, motherfucker: Wittgenstein
>>7419531
Cogitas ergo es.
>>7419531
Solipism is just a name for a coherence of the self. The very fact that this thread exists which is questioning this coherence proves that the self is not coherent. But how is that possible? Excatly, it is possible because the self is not the only thing existing. If it was there would be no question, no contradictions, no reason to discuss, no resistance, even language wouldn't be necessary. There would be pure flow of consciousness. But it would be a consciousness that wouldn't know of it's own existence. It would just "be". If solipism was real you wouldn't know that you as a self would exist.
>>7422142
>>Solipism is just a name for a coherence of the self.
what do you mean by coherence
>>7419531
Solipsism is a transcendental position, and so falls to a general critique of transcendentalism.
>>7423446
that bitch is Mrs. USA? I seen a more beautiful girl just this evening in whole foods
>>7423471
>whole foods
White people. :|
>>7423477
goddamn yes she was white. blonde too. probably blue eyed, but I didn't have enough time to spy her. she was like a cut gem
>>7423446
This is not an absolute definition I admit.
But what I mean with coherence is first an isolated and enclosed entity that has no relation to the surrounding world however it is shaped. Second it means that this entity is not able to create or experience difference over time.
It would be like an eternity either concluded in one ideal moment that never changes (it isn't able to change as it is already completed and there is nothing, no stimulus that would initiate any form of irritating this integrity) or an entity that is diffused in time without being able to connect any moment with another (so it would change constantly as there is no connection between moments and there is no stimulus again that would irritate this dispersion).
Actually the second would be the opposite of coherence but this is another extreme form of solipism, a divided entity with no possibility to recognize its own division. In both cases external stimulus, a form of existence beyond to the self is needed to create self-consciousness.
>>7421788
By including "self" among "personality, reason, free will, etc.", which was probably wrong, I meant something more like a coherent personalized identity, not simply sentience/subjectivity. When I say "self-contained", "yourself", etc., for lack of better words, the "self" is referring to a singular subjectivity, which might also be called sentience. I'm saying there is a "background noise" underlying sentience, the essence of subjectivity, which a solipsist might argue contains all existence inside it, or which entails one aspect/reflection of a singular existence, without our necessarily being "aware" of all particular pieces at any given moment. Specific qualia, like pain, etc., are written on top of this background noise, which forms a kind of blank underlying qualia of being. The phenomenon of memory is likewise written on top of it, which means there's no reason to believe the background noise ceases during periods of sleep when memory isn't active. The assumption is the background noise is a ceaseless continuum.
I don't actually endorse solipsism. But the question is whether this sentience I'm talking about can be self-contained. If a singular sentience can be ultimately equivalent to all the things/systems comprising existence of which it isn't "aware" or wakeful of at any given moment, in some kind of condition of self-deception. Or whether singularity/wholeness remains despite a multiple-aspect/subject-object distinction. I'd say actually that it can't, but this only implies something totally complete/undivided from which it derives, like God.
>>7419531
neuroscience proves that if anything actually doesn't exist, it is "me"
>>7424895
Thanks for the distinction.
I guess I'd say that the kind of "background noise" sentience you're describing is a really hard concept to define. It would seem almost impossible to demonstrate the existence of such a thing.
Without other people (your parents) you would exist and if they don't exist you don't exist
>>7425985
Wouldn't*
>>7425985
if mirrors cant be real then i eyes dont real
If everyone is in your mind then how can they know anything you don't?
>>7419764
are you this retarded
>>7426021
how do I know that I dont know things
>>7426043
Because you're asking questions
>>7426056
fuck you nigga
read putnams brain in a vat essay
>>7419531
The base assumption of Solipsism is non-existence
This assumption goes against the world of model we currently live in.
Solipsism is the answer to a question that need not be asked
Transcendental idealism is better than solipsism, because things and people have objective validity, but only for a subject. Solipsism misses both points and is therefore question-begging and incoherent. So the goal of solipsism is better achieved with transcendental idealism; therefore there is no reason to adopt solipsism. Easy peasy.
>>7419536
God I wish
Solipsism isn't a theory that can be disproven, it is a perspective that can either be congenial with an individual's interpretation of the defining crises of their life or not.
>>7426914
>So the goal of solipsism
explicitly, what the goal of solipsism ?
>>7428288
to crash your mind with no chance for survival
>>7419531
it can't be taken seriously because it's unfalsifiable
>>7426809
>This assumption goes against the world of model we currently live in.
quantum physicists can't even tell if a cat in a box is dead or alive.
we know nothing.
>>7419573
my sick digits will prove my existence, and that of all
>>7419531
Some philosophy is so fucking stupid
>>7419531
If Solipsism is true,
why are there Solipsists?
>>7419559
>when people think that quantum mechanics has something to do with consciousness
