Most people find the concept of solipsism to be ridiculous. But what if it is, technically, true?
I'm going to define Solipsism as the position that all that can be known is the self and its emanations, i.e., content within the framework of perception, or mind.
It's imperative that one not mistake my position for the more radical form of solipsism which posits that nobody else exists, except their self. These types claim to have absolute knowledge that nobody else exists. I'm not making that position, of course; I'm claiming that all that can be known is one's own self, and the content that emanates from their self, or mind. To claim that other people don't exist implies knowledge of otherness, something beyond one's own limited form of perception.
I hear this common ' rebuttal ' all the time, that my position of solipsism is refuted because one can perceive other people in an external world. But, actually, one does not perceive an external world which is somehow wholly disconnected from their mind; the mind forms these perceptions of externality and people. Imagine this akin to how one can have an experience of externality in a dream. Does the dream environment refute the position that the dream content are emanations of the mind? Of course not, so too with what we call " the real world "; our perceptions, i.e., sight, taste, smell, touch, and hearing are all subjective. Our experiences may be very similar, but no one has the same experience numerically.
In regards to otherness, an objective world, we can only believe, or speculate about it; human knowledge is subjective.
Solipsism is the default position.
I welcome arguments to the contrary.
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3989 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
Ignore the dorky mannerisms, but I think you are confusing what was coined the phaneron with solipsism. It's what you'd probably call solipsism light. But that's not solipsism.
Henry Quirk
Gender : Posts : 335 Join date : 2014-06-03 Age : 61 Location : 'here'
I know for a fact 'sumthin' exists outside of me, 'sumthin' independent of me.
How do I know this?
Simply: I'm too friggin' dumb to come up with all the shit that seems to go on around me all the time, and not just the human shenanigans, but the simple things too.
Trees: no freakin' way trees are a figment of my imagination.
Again: too friggin' dumb to come up with 'trees'.
So: if I'm too dumb to come up with the 'sumthin' that seems to be outside of me, then there really is 'sumthin' outside of me (apprehended by me through myself [senses]), and "all that can be known is the self and its emanations" is an error.
Sure, that 'sumthin' has its context within "the framework of (my) perception" but its origin is 'outside', so I can safely say -- regardless of the true nature of the world -- a world exists and it exists independent of 'me'.
I know for a fact 'sumthin' exists outside of me, 'sumthin' independent of me.
How do I know this?
Simply: I'm too friggin' dumb to come up with all the shit that seems to go on around me all the time, and not just the human shenanigans, but the simple things too.
Trees: no freakin' way trees are a figment of my imagination.
Again: too friggin' dumb to come up with 'trees'.
So: if I'm too dumb to come up with the 'sumthin' that seems to be outside of me, then there really is 'sumthin' outside of me (apprehended by me through myself [senses]), and "all that can be known is the self and its emanations" is an error.
Sure, that 'sumthin' has its context within "the framework of (my) perception" but its origin is 'outside', so I can safely say -- regardless of the true nature of the world -- a world exists and it exists independent of 'me'.
The problem with your claim is that you are assuming that your ego is responsible for all mental ' projections '. The mind does things sub and unconsciously, too. Hypothetical: Were the trees in your dream " real " because you are too dumb to make them up yourself?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
The brain constructs mental models to refer to observed phenomena. It simplifies/generalizes, using sensual data, to construct static abstractions, that then refer to dynamic phenomena.
In nature solipsism leads to a quick death...because a brain referring back to its own abstractions, and excluding the troubling, contradicting, sense data streaming into the brain via the sense organs, will soon fall victim to its own stupidity.
The secret to escaping the trappings of ego, to the seductive pleasures of believing in what you hope is there, is to refer all opinions not back to mental abstractions, but to connect them to phenomena - empiricism.
The skull cocoons the brain, but the sense organs, via the neural network, feed it data from the world outside its confines.
The fact hat you think solipsism is inescapable tells me that you've surrendered to the easy way of modernism. Modernism being a sheltering environment - to produce docile productive automatons - protects the self-referential brain form its own stupidity. All are now free to live in their own heads, if they do their job, and pay their taxes and remain loyal to the rules that provides them with this service. This is perspectivism and "let's agree to disagree" or why "civility" is so important to the sheltered mind. Having no reality to rudely snap it out of its delusions it considers any intrusion an assault upon its "rights".
It has paid its dues and so now it "deserves" to be left along, to believe in any absurdity it wishes to believe in....
Remember how in The Matrix Cypher (code), betrays his own, so as to return to his previous state of solipsism?
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3989 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
Yes, one could call my position " Solipsism light ", or " Phaneron ". But still, the " real world - the objective world " is mere speculation.
There is a difference between what the phaneron is and solipsism and it's not just about semantics.
The phaneron just means that your sensory information of reality is not reality but the sensory information of reality.
Solipsism is believing that reality is, at least, malleable, if not entirely made up by your mind.
The problem with phaneron is that it assumes as axiomatic that there is an objective world, but really we can only speculate about it; one would have to, magically, jump out of their own mind in order to know if there is a " real world ". I do believe there is an objective world; theoretically, it makes sense, but I can never know it.Knowing vs Believing
Knowledge is unquestionable, and self-evident. Belief is not.
Last edited by Erik on Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
Henry Quirk
Gender : Posts : 335 Join date : 2014-06-03 Age : 61 Location : 'here'
Yes, one could call my position " Solipsism light ", or " Phaneron ". But still, the " real world - the objective world " is mere speculation.
There is a difference between what the phaneron is and solipsism and it's not just about semantics.
The phaneron just means that your sensory information of reality is not reality but the sensory information of reality.
Solipsism is believing that reality is, at least, malleable, if not entirely made up by your mind.
The problem with phaneron is that it assumes as axiomatic that there is an objective world, but really we can only speculate about it; one would have to, magically, jump out of their own minds in order to know if there is a " real world ". I do believe there is an objective world; theoretically, it makes sense, but I can never know it.Knowing vs Believing
Yes, nobody can never 'know' it. But believes have effects on the mind, the psyche. It changes people. What about your hardware? Is it better suited for solipsism or realism or something in between? This should be considered well.
"Were the trees in your dream " real " because you are too dumb to make them up yourself?"
No. The trees in my dreams are fictions I generate based on what I apprehend when awake.
#
"you are assuming that your ego is responsible for all mental ' projections"
No. I assume the model of the world I build in my head is based on fragmentary information I apprehend.
Without that information: I got nuthin' to work with.
Here is the kicker: How do you know, unquestionably, the fundamental distinction between what you call " the real world " and your dreams? Apart from obvious surrealistic aspects, the dream world and perceived " real world " are both subjective in nature, based in qualia.
The real world is only an assumption - not a known, unquestionable fact.
The brain constructs mental models to refer to observed phenomena. It simplifies/generalizes, using sensual data, to construct static abstractions, that then refer to dynamic phenomena.
In nature solipsism leads to a quick death...because a brain referring back to its own abstractions, and excluding the troubling, contradicting, sense data streaming into the brain via the sense organs, will soon fall victim to its own stupidity.
The secret to escaping the trappings of ego, to the seductive pleasures of believing in what you hope is there, is to refer all opinions not back to mental abstractions, but to connect them to phenomena - empiricism.
The skull cocoons the brain, but the sense organs, via the neural network, feed it data from the world outside its confines.
The fact hat you think solipsism is inescapable tells me that you've surrendered to the easy way of modernism. Modernism being a sheltering environment - to produce docile productive automatons - protects the self-referential brain form its own stupidity. All are now free to live in their own heads, if they do their job, and pay their taxes and remain loyal to the rules that provides them with this service. This is perspectivism and "let's agree to disagree" or why "civility" is so important to the sheltered mind. Having no reality to rudely snap it out of its delusions it considers any intrusion an assault upon its "rights".
It has paid its dues and so now it "deserves" to be left along, to believe in any absurdity it wishes to believe in....
Remember how in The Matrix Cypher (code), betrays his own, so as to return to his previous state of solipsism?
I think you are mistaking me for the extreme solipsist that claims as fact that all experience is a mere phantom projection of the mind. Like I prior mentioned, I do believe in an objective world, that you and everyone here on KTS are not mere projections of my mind, but, of course, I have no way of knowing this for sure. I believe you guys are real, but don't know it.
Existence is not "self evident" though. Your self does not inhabit the whole of existence. How could it? Unless you rationalize that, your solipsism has no validity.
Existence is not "self evident" though. Your self does not inhabit the whole of existence. How could it? Unless you rationalize that, your solipsism has no validity.
Is your body inside or outside "the universe"?
Existence, in the conventional sense, is not self-evident, correct. But the solipsistic definition of existence is based in experience, or mind.
Any talk about things existing beyond me, or beyond my perceptions, is speculative. Is my body inside or outside the universe? This question, of course, presupposes as axiomatic the existence of an objective world....
Provide concrete proof to me of an objective world.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
I think you are mistaking me for the extreme solipsist that claims as fact that all experience is a mere phantom projection of the mind. Like I prior mentioned, I do believe in an objective world, that you and everyone here on KTS are not mere projections of my mind, but, of course, I have no way of knowing this for sure. I believe you guys are real, but don't know it.
That you insist on certainty, tells me you have yet to come to terms with the price of being alive.
No absolutes...means no certainty. Only hypothesis...theoretical, where the oration of the theo is not fully understood.
I think you are mistaking me for the extreme solipsist that claims as fact that all experience is a mere phantom projection of the mind. Like I prior mentioned, I do believe in an objective world, that you and everyone here on KTS are not mere projections of my mind, but, of course, I have no way of knowing this for sure. I believe you guys are real, but don't know it.
That you insist on certainty, tells me you have yet to come to terms with the price of being alive.
No absolutes...means no certainty. Only hypothesis...theoretical, where the oration of the theo is not fully understood.
Then it seems like we are on the same page.
Could you elaborate on your initial statement about me coming to terms with the price of being alive?
Skepticism undoes solipsism. For example, read Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy. It's a short read.
You mentioned that the "outside world" is speculative.....but isn't the "inner world" also speculative? Why are certain of yourself? Why do you presume yourself as given?
A simple solution: Define Thyself
Once you begin to do this, you are no longer a solipsist
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Could you elaborate on your initial statement about me coming to terms with the price of being alive?
Your thread is titled "How solipsism is inescapable". You begin with a declaration of defeat.
You are in the cubicle, your brain having come into contact with a possibility, an idea, that all you've experienced, in your life, might be a fabrication....and liberating possibility, is turned to a surrender.
Skepticism undoes solipsism. For example, read Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy. It's a short read.
You mentioned that the "outside world" is speculative.....but isn't the "inner world" also speculative? Why are certain of yourself? Why do you presume yourself as given?
A simple solution: Define Thyself
Once you begin to do this, you are no longer a solipsist
The " inner " world isn't speculative; it's self-evident. There is no doubt that the color blue appears to me; as prior mentioned, it's self evident, appearing to the self. There is no doubt that I feel cold, it's self-evident, and so on. Such things are undoubtable. A world existing beyond me, an objective world, is questionable.
How am I certain of myself? The question is absurd, is it not? The question already answers itself; there must be a conscious self first to even be certain of things.
Henry Quirk
Gender : Posts : 335 Join date : 2014-06-03 Age : 61 Location : 'here'
"The real world is only an assumption - not a known, unquestionable fact."
Again: 'if I'm too dumb to come up with the 'sumthin' that seems to be outside of me, then there really is 'sumthin' outside of me (apprehended by me through myself [senses]), and "all that can be known is the self and its emanations" is an error. Sure, that 'sumthin' has its context within "the framework of (my) perception" but its origin is 'outside', so I can safely say -- regardless of the true nature of the world -- a world exists and it exists independent of 'me'.'
Been operatin' on the basis of this for a long time...it's never failed me yet.
"The real world is only an assumption - not a known, unquestionable fact."
Again: 'if I'm too dumb to come up with the 'sumthin' that seems to be outside of me, then there really is 'sumthin' outside of me (apprehended by me through myself [senses]), and "all that can be known is the self and its emanations" is an error. Sure, that 'sumthin' has its context within "the framework of (my) perception" but its origin is 'outside', so I can safely say -- regardless of the true nature of the world -- a world exists and it exists independent of 'me'.'
Been operatin' on the basis of this for a long time...it's never failed me yet.
'nuff said.
Like I said before, your mind can do things on its 'own', like form images of trees, bring about sensations of cold, etc. This doesn't, automatically, mean it's coming from an objective world.
I could operate on the basis that the " real world " is a highly complex and well ordered phantom dream of mine, and I could still function properly in daily life.
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3989 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
Like I said before, your mind can do things on its 'own', like form images of trees, bring about sensations of cold, etc. This doesn't, automatically, mean it's coming from an objective world.
I could operate on the basis that the " real world " is a highly complex and well ordered phantom dream of mine, and I could still function properly in daily life.
What would change for you if you were to operate under that assumption? This includes not only your immediate actions but also you psychological state.
Henry Quirk
Gender : Posts : 335 Join date : 2014-06-03 Age : 61 Location : 'here'
Like I said before, your mind can do things on its 'own', like form images of trees, bring about sensations of cold, etc. This doesn't, automatically, mean it's coming from an objective world.
I could operate on the basis that the " real world " is a highly complex and well ordered phantom dream of mine, and I could still function properly in daily life.
What would change for you if you were to operate under that assumption? This includes not only your immediate actions but also you psychological state.
Well, theoretically, I could operate under that assumption, though it would disturb the living hell out of me. I would feel, extremely, lonely and bewildered. But, of course, I could still, technically, do the things I did before.
In regards to otherness, an objective world, we can only believe, or speculate about it; human knowledge is subjective.
Solipsism is the default position.
I welcome arguments to the contrary.
One problem with your argument is that it presumes the external world and how it works, including other minds. You casually assume we dream and we know that dreams are merely internal subjective events, for example. So the argument is poisoned fruit built on common ideas about reality, perception, the nature of minds. IOW a bunch of objective ontological assumptions and conclusions.
In regards to otherness, an objective world, we can only believe, or speculate about it; human knowledge is subjective.
Solipsism is the default position.
I welcome arguments to the contrary.
One problem with your argument is that it presumes the external world and how it works, including other minds. You casually assume we dream and we know that dreams are merely internal subjective events, for example. So the argument is poisoned fruit built on common ideas about reality, perception, the nature of minds. IOW a bunch of objective ontological assumptions and conclusions.
Yes, I do assume that other people exist, and that dreams are mere phantom projections. But I don't claim to have certain knowledge of these things. This is still consistent with my position.
I used the dream example because most people assume that they are mere phantom projections. I don't claim to know for sure that they are, as prior mentioned.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
And in the turd's post, we see the problem with sheltering.
How do we discern the real from a dream, when both have zero implications, in our sheltering, predictable world? In nature, there would be no question: death would be the deciding factor...and dominating such weak minds would be another. A pseudo-intellectual moron, like Kovacs would have nothing to impress us with.
In this one, we are left to debate words, and if and how they refer to real or fabricated phenomena...because in artificial environments they can be either.
Here is a quick way: That which has more, rather than less, referential points to our ongoing interpretations is most probably real...or, that noumenon which has more connections to the phenomenon, where by phenomenon we understand a continuum or a pattern, is most probably real.
Given that the noumenon is always lagging behind the phenomenon, the ongoing is what is important.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Mon Jul 07, 2014 2:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
In order for a moron, like Kovacs, to seed doubt in our minds, he must equate the artificial with the real, as being equally a product of the mind. It's how a moron preserves his artificial construct, by making them as plausible as one based on reality.
The method is tricky, when you are ensconces in a matrix of artificiality. It's why morons, like Kovacs, has anything to say.
To discern what is manmade and what is independent form human interventions. That is the question.
What you must, first, keep in mind, is that Kovacs, as a representative of the common, triess to discern individual narcissism from communal narcissism....and/or individual schizophrenia, as what goes outside the norm, from mass schizophrenia, which is his norm. Therefore, for an idiot, like him, when it feels good, then this is an indication of mass narcissism, as if the world cares about Kovacs and phnonee and moooo's well being and their pleasures. For such specimens a "narcissist", like their inverted version of a nihilist, is anyone who places himself and his thinking, OUTSIDE, their artifices.
