Urgent: rebuttal needed page 1
Exi5tentialist
31st January 2012, 07:32 PM
Hi everyone. I urgently need a robust philosophical rebuttal of solipsism.
Remember, this is urgent. I haven't got much time. Please help if you can.
Remember, this is urgent. I haven't got much time. Please help if you can.
nick
31st January 2012, 07:39 PM
Try this: fuck you.
Exi5tentialist
31st January 2012, 07:40 PM
Try this: fuck you.
Didn't I just invent that?
Didn't I just invent that?
nick
31st January 2012, 07:40 PM
No
Exi5tentialist
31st January 2012, 07:41 PM
No
And that
And that
FedUpWithFaith
31st January 2012, 07:42 PM
I've written what you want before. Let me see if I can dig it up. Solipsism cannot be disproven by any logical argument. But it can be made to look logically ridiculous if one accepts Occam's Razor.
Exi5tentialist
31st January 2012, 07:44 PM
Thanks FU
My need is great.
My need is great.
Exi5tentialist
31st January 2012, 07:48 PM
So which part of my brain has nick scurried away to now?
Help me somebody! He's in my head!
Help me somebody! He's in my head!
FedUpWithFaith
31st January 2012, 07:58 PM
Shoot, I can't find a copy. I know I wrote an in depth analysis in the Philosophy section of RD.net many years ago. I heard somebody was resurrecting all those old posts someplace but don't know where to find it.
Here's an abbreviated version of the argument. Solipsism supposes that your subjective reality is the only reality. All "apparent" objective reality, i.e., all the appearences of an external world and interactions with external consciousnesses like your brother, mother, girlfriends are essentially inventions of your own mind. Occam's razor renders this ridiculous however. Because your mind has then invented histories that involve people like Einstein, Picasso, Rodin, Joyce, etc. who have done things that are verifiable from your subjective reference frame but you are nonetheless incapable of doing. If your mind had the capability to create them and their works, how come you can't do math, painting, sculpture, writing, etc. as well as they can? How come you don't understand Urdu, Swahili, Tagalog, or Sanskrit yet there are people in your world who do and get along and can teach you to speak in their tongue if you want. You can explain it, but it involves adding many layers of needless complexity.
Solpsism gets more complicated when you move to Berkeleyian idealism, which basically treats God as a solipsistic being and you are somehow a self-conscious entity within His reality. You are essentially Him and you, somehow compartmentalized. Another needless complication that begs a mechanism that does not comport with the natural world we experience. But that is not strictly considered solipsism so I won't address it further.
Hope this helps.
Here's an abbreviated version of the argument. Solipsism supposes that your subjective reality is the only reality. All "apparent" objective reality, i.e., all the appearences of an external world and interactions with external consciousnesses like your brother, mother, girlfriends are essentially inventions of your own mind. Occam's razor renders this ridiculous however. Because your mind has then invented histories that involve people like Einstein, Picasso, Rodin, Joyce, etc. who have done things that are verifiable from your subjective reference frame but you are nonetheless incapable of doing. If your mind had the capability to create them and their works, how come you can't do math, painting, sculpture, writing, etc. as well as they can? How come you don't understand Urdu, Swahili, Tagalog, or Sanskrit yet there are people in your world who do and get along and can teach you to speak in their tongue if you want. You can explain it, but it involves adding many layers of needless complexity.
Solpsism gets more complicated when you move to Berkeleyian idealism, which basically treats God as a solipsistic being and you are somehow a self-conscious entity within His reality. You are essentially Him and you, somehow compartmentalized. Another needless complication that begs a mechanism that does not comport with the natural world we experience. But that is not strictly considered solipsism so I won't address it further.
Hope this helps.
Exi5tentialist
31st January 2012, 08:03 PM
Hmmm. Food for thought. Thanks FUWF.
FedUpWithFaith
31st January 2012, 08:07 PM
What was the rush?
Exi5tentialist
31st January 2012, 08:51 PM
What was the rush?
Isn't it most urgent issue in the universe?
:hair:
Isn't it most urgent issue in the universe?
:hair:
Hermit
31st January 2012, 11:02 PM
Hi everyone. I urgently need a robust philosophical rebuttal of solipsism.Solipsism is part of metaphysics. People have been doing metaphysics since before that term has even been invented without ever coming to a resolution. Metaphysics is therefore a waste of time, but if you enjoy wallowing in its mire, don't let me stop you.
FedUpWithFaith
1st February 2012, 12:06 AM
Hi everyone. I urgently need a robust philosophical rebuttal of solipsism.Solipsism is part of metaphysics. People have been doing metaphysics since before that term has even been invented without ever coming to a resolution. Metaphysics is therefore a waste of time, but if you enjoy wallowing in its mire, don't let me stop you.
I could apply most of that argument to my wife's Sudoku puzzles she loves to "waste " time on. I also suppose you could say the same about the humanity itself - at least until an comet or other confligration ends it, at which time its resolution will no longer be a matter of human debate. Metaphysics is fun if you don't take it too seriously and it does offer some interesting questions and insights even if it is a bit short on answers. However, I'm not so convinced metaphysics and physics (if you stretch it to include computationalism) will be divided much longer. I assume you don't think physics is a waste of time.
Ever talk to a mathematician or theoretical physicist about the aesthetics of math. It may be for good reason.
I could apply most of that argument to my wife's Sudoku puzzles she loves to "waste " time on. I also suppose you could say the same about the humanity itself - at least until an comet or other confligration ends it, at which time its resolution will no longer be a matter of human debate. Metaphysics is fun if you don't take it too seriously and it does offer some interesting questions and insights even if it is a bit short on answers. However, I'm not so convinced metaphysics and physics (if you stretch it to include computationalism) will be divided much longer. I assume you don't think physics is a waste of time.
Ever talk to a mathematician or theoretical physicist about the aesthetics of math. It may be for good reason.
charlou
1st February 2012, 12:44 AM
Hmmm. Food for thought. Thanks FUWF.
Yes indeedy.
'Metaphysics' .. it's a word akin to 'supernatural' .. The more I understand, the less I'm inclined to think in such terms .. in fact, I stopped some time ago.
Aside: The notion of 'blasphemy' is another one ... heh.
Yes indeedy.
'Metaphysics' .. it's a word akin to 'supernatural' .. The more I understand, the less I'm inclined to think in such terms .. in fact, I stopped some time ago.
Aside: The notion of 'blasphemy' is another one ... heh.
FedUpWithFaith
1st February 2012, 01:13 AM
Hmmm. Food for thought. Thanks FUWF.
Yes indeedy.
'Metaphysics' .. it's a word akin to 'supernatural' .. The more I understand, the less I'm inclined to think in such terms .. in fact, I stopped some time ago.
Aside: The notion of 'blasphemy' is another one ... heh.
If I thought it meant the same thing as supernatural (and for many woo-woo types it does) I'd agree with you. It doesn't though. And "metaphysical" certainly doesn't equate with "irrational" though there are many bad irrational metaphysical arguments. In fact, you can't truly face the nature of what is rational or irrational without taking an implicit or explicit metaphysical position.
If anything, I'd like to see rational people take back ownership of metaphysics from the irrational. My belief, though most would disagree, is that computationalism will bridge the seemingly impenetrable ancient divide between metaphysics and physics sometime this century. These things don't have to remain ever mysterious.
Yes indeedy.
'Metaphysics' .. it's a word akin to 'supernatural' .. The more I understand, the less I'm inclined to think in such terms .. in fact, I stopped some time ago.
Aside: The notion of 'blasphemy' is another one ... heh.
If I thought it meant the same thing as supernatural (and for many woo-woo types it does) I'd agree with you. It doesn't though. And "metaphysical" certainly doesn't equate with "irrational" though there are many bad irrational metaphysical arguments. In fact, you can't truly face the nature of what is rational or irrational without taking an implicit or explicit metaphysical position.
If anything, I'd like to see rational people take back ownership of metaphysics from the irrational. My belief, though most would disagree, is that computationalism will bridge the seemingly impenetrable ancient divide between metaphysics and physics sometime this century. These things don't have to remain ever mysterious.
Hermit
3rd February 2012, 01:08 PM
Ever talk to a mathematician or theoretical physicist about the aesthetics of math. It may be for good reason.
I'd rather not. At least not with mathematicians. Maths is too close to the abyss of metaphysics, and makes it too tempting to jump. That's why so many mathematicians went mad and/or committed suicide.
Philosophy, Physics, Mathematics - “Dangerous Knowledge”
I'd rather not. At least not with mathematicians. Maths is too close to the abyss of metaphysics, and makes it too tempting to jump. That's why so many mathematicians went mad and/or committed suicide.
Philosophy, Physics, Mathematics - “Dangerous Knowledge”
oblivion
3rd February 2012, 01:16 PM
hmm
Adenosine
3rd February 2012, 01:19 PM
lol too many janitors make Aden go wtf
Hermit
3rd February 2012, 01:23 PM
hmmThanks. I did remember the noparse tag, but I also remembered that it made the link non-clickable.
Grumps
3rd February 2012, 02:48 PM
Hmmm. Food for thought. Thanks FUWF.
Yes indeedy.
'Metaphysics' .. it's a word akin to 'supernatural' .. The more I understand, the less I'm inclined to think in such terms .. in fact, I stopped some time ago.
Aside: The notion of 'blasphemy' is another one ... heh.
If I thought it meant the same thing as supernatural (and for many woo-woo types it does) I'd agree with you. It doesn't though. And "metaphysical" certainly doesn't equate with "irrational" though there are many bad irrational metaphysical arguments. In fact, you can't truly face the nature of what is rational or irrational without taking an implicit or explicit metaphysical position.
If anything, I'd like to see rational people take back ownership of metaphysics from the irrational. My belief, though most would disagree, is that computationalism will bridge the seemingly impenetrable ancient divide between metaphysics and physics sometime this century. These things don't have to remain ever mysterious.
Metaphysics is irrational - it makes non-empirical judgements on objective phenomena. It is a conclusion by internal monologue.
Yes indeedy.
'Metaphysics' .. it's a word akin to 'supernatural' .. The more I understand, the less I'm inclined to think in such terms .. in fact, I stopped some time ago.
Aside: The notion of 'blasphemy' is another one ... heh.
If I thought it meant the same thing as supernatural (and for many woo-woo types it does) I'd agree with you. It doesn't though. And "metaphysical" certainly doesn't equate with "irrational" though there are many bad irrational metaphysical arguments. In fact, you can't truly face the nature of what is rational or irrational without taking an implicit or explicit metaphysical position.
If anything, I'd like to see rational people take back ownership of metaphysics from the irrational. My belief, though most would disagree, is that computationalism will bridge the seemingly impenetrable ancient divide between metaphysics and physics sometime this century. These things don't have to remain ever mysterious.
Metaphysics is irrational - it makes non-empirical judgements on objective phenomena. It is a conclusion by internal monologue.
Mysturji
3rd February 2012, 03:08 PM
See my location
FedUpWithFaith
3rd February 2012, 04:05 PM
Hmmm. Food for thought. Thanks FUWF.
Yes indeedy.
'Metaphysics' .. it's a word akin to 'supernatural' .. The more I understand, the less I'm inclined to think in such terms .. in fact, I stopped some time ago.
Aside: The notion of 'blasphemy' is another one ... heh.
If I thought it meant the same thing as supernatural (and for many woo-woo types it does) I'd agree with you. It doesn't though. And "metaphysical" certainly doesn't equate with "irrational" though there are many bad irrational metaphysical arguments. In fact, you can't truly face the nature of what is rational or irrational without taking an implicit or explicit metaphysical position.
If anything, I'd like to see rational people take back ownership of metaphysics from the irrational. My belief, though most would disagree, is that computationalism will bridge the seemingly impenetrable ancient divide between metaphysics and physics sometime this century. These things don't have to remain ever mysterious.
Metaphysics is irrational - it makes non-empirical judgements on objective phenomena. It is a conclusion by internal monologue.
You've just made a metaphysical argument and don't even realize it.
Yes indeedy.
'Metaphysics' .. it's a word akin to 'supernatural' .. The more I understand, the less I'm inclined to think in such terms .. in fact, I stopped some time ago.
Aside: The notion of 'blasphemy' is another one ... heh.
If I thought it meant the same thing as supernatural (and for many woo-woo types it does) I'd agree with you. It doesn't though. And "metaphysical" certainly doesn't equate with "irrational" though there are many bad irrational metaphysical arguments. In fact, you can't truly face the nature of what is rational or irrational without taking an implicit or explicit metaphysical position.
If anything, I'd like to see rational people take back ownership of metaphysics from the irrational. My belief, though most would disagree, is that computationalism will bridge the seemingly impenetrable ancient divide between metaphysics and physics sometime this century. These things don't have to remain ever mysterious.
Metaphysics is irrational - it makes non-empirical judgements on objective phenomena. It is a conclusion by internal monologue.
You've just made a metaphysical argument and don't even realize it.
oblivion
3rd February 2012, 10:54 PM
hmmThanks. I did remember the noparse tag, but I also remembered that it made the link non-clickable.
since I was able to fix the definition bug, I undid the noparse.
since I was able to fix the definition bug, I undid the noparse.
Cunt
4th February 2012, 02:04 AM
Hi everyone. I urgently need a robust philosophical rebuttal of solipsism.
Remember, this is urgent. I haven't got much time. Please help if you can.
A punch in the genitals should suffice. Adding 'I refute it thusly' is optional.
Remember, this is urgent. I haven't got much time. Please help if you can.
A punch in the genitals should suffice. Adding 'I refute it thusly' is optional.
Grumps
4th February 2012, 09:09 AM
Hmmm. Food for thought. Thanks FUWF.
Yes indeedy.
'Metaphysics' .. it's a word akin to 'supernatural' .. The more I understand, the less I'm inclined to think in such terms .. in fact, I stopped some time ago.
Aside: The notion of 'blasphemy' is another one ... heh.
If I thought it meant the same thing as supernatural (and for many woo-woo types it does) I'd agree with you. It doesn't though. And "metaphysical" certainly doesn't equate with "irrational" though there are many bad irrational metaphysical arguments. In fact, you can't truly face the nature of what is rational or irrational without taking an implicit or explicit metaphysical position.
If anything, I'd like to see rational people take back ownership of metaphysics from the irrational. My belief, though most would disagree, is that computationalism will bridge the seemingly impenetrable ancient divide between metaphysics and physics sometime this century. These things don't have to remain ever mysterious.
Metaphysics is irrational - it makes non-empirical judgements on objective phenomena. It is a conclusion by internal monologue.
You've just made a metaphysical argument and don't even realize it.
No, I did not - or else the term 'metaphysical' is so vague as to be irrelevant.
Yes indeedy.
'Metaphysics' .. it's a word akin to 'supernatural' .. The more I understand, the less I'm inclined to think in such terms .. in fact, I stopped some time ago.
Aside: The notion of 'blasphemy' is another one ... heh.
If I thought it meant the same thing as supernatural (and for many woo-woo types it does) I'd agree with you. It doesn't though. And "metaphysical" certainly doesn't equate with "irrational" though there are many bad irrational metaphysical arguments. In fact, you can't truly face the nature of what is rational or irrational without taking an implicit or explicit metaphysical position.
If anything, I'd like to see rational people take back ownership of metaphysics from the irrational. My belief, though most would disagree, is that computationalism will bridge the seemingly impenetrable ancient divide between metaphysics and physics sometime this century. These things don't have to remain ever mysterious.
Metaphysics is irrational - it makes non-empirical judgements on objective phenomena. It is a conclusion by internal monologue.
You've just made a metaphysical argument and don't even realize it.
No, I did not - or else the term 'metaphysical' is so vague as to be irrelevant.
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 10:19 AM
Hmmm. Food for thought. Thanks FUWF.
Yes indeedy.
'Metaphysics' .. it's a word akin to 'supernatural' .. The more I understand, the less I'm inclined to think in such terms .. in fact, I stopped some time ago.
Aside: The notion of 'blasphemy' is another one ... heh.
If I thought it meant the same thing as supernatural (and for many woo-woo types it does) I'd agree with you. It doesn't though. And "metaphysical" certainly doesn't equate with "irrational" though there are many bad irrational metaphysical arguments. In fact, you can't truly face the nature of what is rational or irrational without taking an implicit or explicit metaphysical position.
If anything, I'd like to see rational people take back ownership of metaphysics from the irrational. My belief, though most would disagree, is that computationalism will bridge the seemingly impenetrable ancient divide between metaphysics and physics sometime this century. These things don't have to remain ever mysterious.
Metaphysics is irrational - it makes non-empirical judgements on objective phenomena. It is a conclusion by internal monologue.
You've just made a metaphysical argument and don't even realize it.
No, I did not - or else the term 'metaphysical' is so vague as to be irrelevant.
Let's us parse your assertions and their implicit assumptions.
Are logic and math empirical? Can't you indeed evaluate logical and mathematical assertions via an internal monologue without resorting to external objective or empirical testing? In the most advanced forms of mathematics, discoveries are made that humans lack the ability to visualize or map to anything in the "real world". Even if they needed to cheat by using a pencil and paper, wasn't that all basically the result of purely internal mental processes?
Can all empirical conclusions be made without logic? Can any? How about without math?
The bizarre thing is, I believe that what we consider to be metaphysical today, will turn out to be empircal, and when it does, all the shit you hate about it will evaporate. But that's only scientific and philosophic speculation today.
For me, Metaphysics leads to many interesting questions but few, if any, useful answers.
Yes indeedy.
'Metaphysics' .. it's a word akin to 'supernatural' .. The more I understand, the less I'm inclined to think in such terms .. in fact, I stopped some time ago.
Aside: The notion of 'blasphemy' is another one ... heh.
If I thought it meant the same thing as supernatural (and for many woo-woo types it does) I'd agree with you. It doesn't though. And "metaphysical" certainly doesn't equate with "irrational" though there are many bad irrational metaphysical arguments. In fact, you can't truly face the nature of what is rational or irrational without taking an implicit or explicit metaphysical position.
If anything, I'd like to see rational people take back ownership of metaphysics from the irrational. My belief, though most would disagree, is that computationalism will bridge the seemingly impenetrable ancient divide between metaphysics and physics sometime this century. These things don't have to remain ever mysterious.
Metaphysics is irrational - it makes non-empirical judgements on objective phenomena. It is a conclusion by internal monologue.
You've just made a metaphysical argument and don't even realize it.
No, I did not - or else the term 'metaphysical' is so vague as to be irrelevant.
Let's us parse your assertions and their implicit assumptions.
Are logic and math empirical? Can't you indeed evaluate logical and mathematical assertions via an internal monologue without resorting to external objective or empirical testing? In the most advanced forms of mathematics, discoveries are made that humans lack the ability to visualize or map to anything in the "real world". Even if they needed to cheat by using a pencil and paper, wasn't that all basically the result of purely internal mental processes?
Can all empirical conclusions be made without logic? Can any? How about without math?
The bizarre thing is, I believe that what we consider to be metaphysical today, will turn out to be empircal, and when it does, all the shit you hate about it will evaporate. But that's only scientific and philosophic speculation today.
For me, Metaphysics leads to many interesting questions but few, if any, useful answers.
Hermit
4th February 2012, 01:05 PM
Metaphysics leads to many interesting questions but few, if any, useful answers.
Bingo! :p
Bingo! :p
Exi5tentialist
4th February 2012, 03:11 PM
So have we got the answer now?
Grumps
4th February 2012, 03:49 PM
Yes indeedy.
'Metaphysics' .. it's a word akin to 'supernatural' .. The more I understand, the less I'm inclined to think in such terms .. in fact, I stopped some time ago.
Aside: The notion of 'blasphemy' is another one ... heh.
If I thought it meant the same thing as supernatural (and for many woo-woo types it does) I'd agree with you. It doesn't though. And "metaphysical" certainly doesn't equate with "irrational" though there are many bad irrational metaphysical arguments. In fact, you can't truly face the nature of what is rational or irrational without taking an implicit or explicit metaphysical position.
If anything, I'd like to see rational people take back ownership of metaphysics from the irrational. My belief, though most would disagree, is that computationalism will bridge the seemingly impenetrable ancient divide between metaphysics and physics sometime this century. These things don't have to remain ever mysterious.
Metaphysics is irrational - it makes non-empirical judgements on objective phenomena. It is a conclusion by internal monologue.
You've just made a metaphysical argument and don't even realize it.
No, I did not - or else the term 'metaphysical' is so vague as to be irrelevant.
Let's us parse your assertions and their implicit assumptions.
Are logic and math empirical? Can't you indeed evaluate logical and mathematical assertions via an internal monologue without resorting to external objective or empirical testing? In the most advanced forms of mathematics, discoveries are made that humans lack the ability to visualize or map to anything in the "real world". Even if they needed to cheat by using a pencil and paper, wasn't that all basically the result of purely internal mental processes?
Can all empirical conclusions be made without logic? Can any? How about without math?
The bizarre thing is, I believe that what we consider to be metaphysical today, will turn out to be empircal, and when it does, all the shit you hate about it will evaporate. But that's only scientific and philosophic speculation today.
For me, Metaphysics leads to many interesting questions but few, if any, useful answers.
What is considered metaphysical, then? Seems to be something nobody has actually answered.
'Metaphysics' .. it's a word akin to 'supernatural' .. The more I understand, the less I'm inclined to think in such terms .. in fact, I stopped some time ago.
Aside: The notion of 'blasphemy' is another one ... heh.
If I thought it meant the same thing as supernatural (and for many woo-woo types it does) I'd agree with you. It doesn't though. And "metaphysical" certainly doesn't equate with "irrational" though there are many bad irrational metaphysical arguments. In fact, you can't truly face the nature of what is rational or irrational without taking an implicit or explicit metaphysical position.
If anything, I'd like to see rational people take back ownership of metaphysics from the irrational. My belief, though most would disagree, is that computationalism will bridge the seemingly impenetrable ancient divide between metaphysics and physics sometime this century. These things don't have to remain ever mysterious.
Metaphysics is irrational - it makes non-empirical judgements on objective phenomena. It is a conclusion by internal monologue.
You've just made a metaphysical argument and don't even realize it.
No, I did not - or else the term 'metaphysical' is so vague as to be irrelevant.
Let's us parse your assertions and their implicit assumptions.
Are logic and math empirical? Can't you indeed evaluate logical and mathematical assertions via an internal monologue without resorting to external objective or empirical testing? In the most advanced forms of mathematics, discoveries are made that humans lack the ability to visualize or map to anything in the "real world". Even if they needed to cheat by using a pencil and paper, wasn't that all basically the result of purely internal mental processes?
Can all empirical conclusions be made without logic? Can any? How about without math?
The bizarre thing is, I believe that what we consider to be metaphysical today, will turn out to be empircal, and when it does, all the shit you hate about it will evaporate. But that's only scientific and philosophic speculation today.
For me, Metaphysics leads to many interesting questions but few, if any, useful answers.
What is considered metaphysical, then? Seems to be something nobody has actually answered.
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 09:47 PM
Wikipedia does a nice job for starters
Exi5tentialist
4th February 2012, 09:56 PM
Wikipedia is utterly crap. It has no content. It states no truths. It contradicts itself. It cannot be quoted authoritatively. I loathe it, and wish it had never been invented.
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 09:56 PM
For me Metaphysics is asking the the non-empirical questions, what is there, and what is it like? As a scientist myself, I prefer science and empiricism over metaphysical arguments that are usually not resolvable. I enjoy metaphysics more as a speculative game that helps me develop arguments and ways of thinking that every so once in awhile i find constructive use for elsewhere. I don't trust it to produce answers to live my life by like most people who accept it.
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 09:59 PM
Wikipedia is utterly crap. It has no content. It states no truths. It contradicts itself. It cannot be quoted authoritatively. I loathe it, and wish it had never been invented.
i didn't suggest it willy nilly. He could go to Stanford's philosophy website.
Before i recommended Wikipedia to Grumps I briefly read through it and it conformed to my general view of the definition so i saw no reason to send him elsewhere.
i didn't suggest it willy nilly. He could go to Stanford's philosophy website.
Before i recommended Wikipedia to Grumps I briefly read through it and it conformed to my general view of the definition so i saw no reason to send him elsewhere.
ficus
11th February 2012, 03:43 AM
I've written what you want before. Let me see if I can dig it up. Solipsism cannot be disproven by any logical argument. But it can be made to look logically ridiculous if one accepts Occam's Razor.The bold is a very strange enunciation: Occam's Razor is a warning against overcomplication in the construction of explanations. It doesn't serve to compare different explanations, just to choose the most parsimonious form of an explanation. That is, different explanations are compared in regards to how they fit the evidence, not in regards to parsimony. I have no idea how parsimony can make Solipsism seem logically ridiculous.
ficus
11th February 2012, 03:46 AM
What is considered metaphysical, then? Conceptions about reality based on imagination rather than experience.
ficus
11th February 2012, 04:11 AM
Shoot, I can't find a copy. I know I wrote an in depth analysis in the Philosophy section of RD.net many years ago. I heard somebody was resurrecting all those old posts someplace but don't know where to find it.
Here's an abbreviated version of the argument. Solipsism supposes that your subjective reality is the only reality. All "apparent" objective reality, i.e., all the appearences of an external world and interactions with external consciousnesses like your brother, mother, girlfriends are essentially inventions of your own mind.That's ontological (which basically no one holds), not methodological solipsism. Methodological solipsism doesn't posit that the external world is an invention of your own mind, but that the external world is a particular category of perception: It is mental content, and nothing of this categorical external world is available except as mental content.
Occam's razor renders this ridiculous however. Because your mind has then invented histories that involve people like Einstein, Picasso, Rodin, Joyce, etc. who have done things that are verifiable from your subjective reference frame but you are nonetheless incapable of doing.Sorry, but that is plainly ridiculous as an argument against solipsism, and 'OCCAMS RAZOR' should never be used as an argument, it just makes it a display of philosophical amateurism.
If your mind had the capability to create them and their works, how come you can't do math, painting, sculpture, writing, etc. as well as they can? How come you don't understand Urdu, Swahili, Tagalog, or Sanskrit yet there are people in your world who do and get along and can teach you to speak in their tongue if you want. You can explain it, but it involves adding many layers of needless complexity.nope... it just means you would be conceiving layers of meaning which you don't further elaborate. Plus, under solipsistic thought, the bold is utterly false: There are images of people who do, there are images of people teaching you a language coming into being in your imagination. It is certainly needless...
Solpsism gets more complicated when you move to Berkeleyian idealism:facepalm: simplicity is now complication... who knew...
, which basically treats God as a solipsistic being and you are somehow a self-conscious entity within His reality. You are essentially Him and you, somehow compartmentalized.... unproblematic but irrelevant to the understanding of the concept
Another needless complication that begs a mechanism that does not comport with the natural world we experience.:facepalm: 1. They aren't a needless complication (Berkeley's IRREFUTABLE conclusions), they are observations of fact. 2. I don't know what you mean about begs a mechanism; Idealism doesn't negate mechanical reality, it just observes that such mechanisms are a description of perceptions. 3. To claim that Idealism does not comport to the natural world of experience doesn't follow: The natural world is an experience, and that is what Idealism posits, and such is an undeniable fact.
TU NO COMPREHENDERE IDEALISMUS...
Hope this helps.It helped providing a misconception of what Solipsism is.
Solipsism, as a concept, is a realization that reality is restricted to mental content (nothing else is available to our understanding but what we can perceive). The usefulness of this concept is in the establishment of SKEPTICISM as the basis for analysis. The concept becomes useless when it negates the physical conception, or the notion of there being other minds; but then that exaggerated solipsism is schizophrenia, not philosophy.
Here's an abbreviated version of the argument. Solipsism supposes that your subjective reality is the only reality. All "apparent" objective reality, i.e., all the appearences of an external world and interactions with external consciousnesses like your brother, mother, girlfriends are essentially inventions of your own mind.That's ontological (which basically no one holds), not methodological solipsism. Methodological solipsism doesn't posit that the external world is an invention of your own mind, but that the external world is a particular category of perception: It is mental content, and nothing of this categorical external world is available except as mental content.
Occam's razor renders this ridiculous however. Because your mind has then invented histories that involve people like Einstein, Picasso, Rodin, Joyce, etc. who have done things that are verifiable from your subjective reference frame but you are nonetheless incapable of doing.Sorry, but that is plainly ridiculous as an argument against solipsism, and 'OCCAMS RAZOR' should never be used as an argument, it just makes it a display of philosophical amateurism.
If your mind had the capability to create them and their works, how come you can't do math, painting, sculpture, writing, etc. as well as they can? How come you don't understand Urdu, Swahili, Tagalog, or Sanskrit yet there are people in your world who do and get along and can teach you to speak in their tongue if you want. You can explain it, but it involves adding many layers of needless complexity.nope... it just means you would be conceiving layers of meaning which you don't further elaborate. Plus, under solipsistic thought, the bold is utterly false: There are images of people who do, there are images of people teaching you a language coming into being in your imagination. It is certainly needless...
Solpsism gets more complicated when you move to Berkeleyian idealism:facepalm: simplicity is now complication... who knew...
, which basically treats God as a solipsistic being and you are somehow a self-conscious entity within His reality. You are essentially Him and you, somehow compartmentalized.... unproblematic but irrelevant to the understanding of the concept
Another needless complication that begs a mechanism that does not comport with the natural world we experience.:facepalm: 1. They aren't a needless complication (Berkeley's IRREFUTABLE conclusions), they are observations of fact. 2. I don't know what you mean about begs a mechanism; Idealism doesn't negate mechanical reality, it just observes that such mechanisms are a description of perceptions. 3. To claim that Idealism does not comport to the natural world of experience doesn't follow: The natural world is an experience, and that is what Idealism posits, and such is an undeniable fact.
TU NO COMPREHENDERE IDEALISMUS...
Hope this helps.It helped providing a misconception of what Solipsism is.
Solipsism, as a concept, is a realization that reality is restricted to mental content (nothing else is available to our understanding but what we can perceive). The usefulness of this concept is in the establishment of SKEPTICISM as the basis for analysis. The concept becomes useless when it negates the physical conception, or the notion of there being other minds; but then that exaggerated solipsism is schizophrenia, not philosophy.
FedUpWithFaith
11th February 2012, 05:41 AM
Shoot, I can't find a copy. I know I wrote an in depth analysis in the Philosophy section of RD.net many years ago. I heard somebody was resurrecting all those old posts someplace but don't know where to find it.
Here's an abbreviated version of the argument. Solipsism supposes that your subjective reality is the only reality. All "apparent" objective reality, i.e., all the appearences of an external world and interactions with external consciousnesses like your brother, mother, girlfriends are essentially inventions of your own mind.That's ontological (which basically no one holds), not methodological solipsism. Methodological solipsism doesn't posit that the external world is an invention of your own mind, but that the external world is a particular category of perception: It is mental content, and nothing of this categorical external world is available except as mental content.
Remember that this was a quick and dirty response to someone who appeared in a hurry. It was not unreasonable for me to equate solipsism with ontological (= metaphyscial) solipsism because that is the general assumed definition used by most people. It doesn't matter that almost nobody believes it. You can tell this if you read a lot of philosophy because for an argument to fall into solipsism is seen as a perjorative. methodoligical solipsism is not that discredited. Moreover, other philosophers and myself find this better incorporated in other idealistic approaches and nomenclatures. You really don't see that much on methodololgic solipsism and you see most its claims and deductions made more comprehensively elsewhere.
Occam's razor renders this ridiculous however. Because your mind has then invented histories that involve people like Einstein, Picasso, Rodin, Joyce, etc. who have done things that are verifiable from your subjective reference frame but you are nonetheless incapable of doing.Sorry, but that is plainly ridiculous as an argument against solipsism, and 'OCCAMS RAZOR' should never be used as an argument, it just makes it a display of philosophical amateurism.
It was a convenient shortcut in a pinch. The bottom line is, on a number of levels illustrated by my example, ont. solipsism does not pass any test of reasonableness which we could expand into many deep philosophical arguments. Occam's razor is a form of "reasonableness" argument. But in the end I usually find examples that appeal directly to human reason far superior to deep phil. discussion or the pretentious need to insert latin or other foreign words.
If your mind had the capability to create them and their works, how come you can't do math, painting, sculpture, writing, etc. as well as they can? How come you don't understand Urdu, Swahili, Tagalog, or Sanskrit yet there are people in your world who do and get along and can teach you to speak in their tongue if you want. You can explain it, but it involves adding many layers of needless complexity.nope... it just means you would be conceiving layers of meaning which you don't further elaborate. Plus, under solipsistic thought, the bold is utterly false: There are images of people who do, there are images of people teaching you a language coming into being in your imagination. It is certainly needless...
i don't understand your fIrst sentence - it certainly doesn't seem to refute anything. Your second on my bold is silly nitpicking. I think its clear what I meant in context to ont. solipsism. Images or not, they are connected with knowledge I cannot associate myself with directly or even understand without creating unreasonable demands on unnecessary complication for what - my supposed amusement?
Solpsism gets more complicated when you move to Berkeleyian idealism:facepalm: simplicity is now complication... who knew...
, which basically treats God as a solipsistic being and you are somehow a self-conscious entity within His reality. You are essentially Him and you, somehow compartmentalized.... unproblematic but irrelevant to the understanding of the concept not irrelevant but agree it's not necessary. Only put it out there in context to wider related forms of idealism.
Another needless complication that begs a mechanism that does not comport with the natural world we experience.:facepalm: 1. They aren't a needless complication (Berkeley's IRREFUTABLE conclusions), they are observations of fact. 2. I don't know what you mean about begs a mechanism; Idealism doesn't negate mechanical reality, it just observes that such mechanisms are a description of perceptions. 3. To claim that Idealism does not comport to the natural world of experience doesn't follow: The natural world is an experience, and that is what Idealism posits, and such is an undeniable fact.
My wording was sloppy, and still pertains to the ont-solip. context but you totally misinterpreted my meaning of mechanism I think. I don't even know what you mean by mechanical reality.
TU NO COMPREHENDERE IDEALISMUS...
OUYAY AREWAY AWAY ETENTIOUSPRAY ITTWAY.
ERAPHSAY ASWAY IGHTRAY ANDWAY OUYAY EREWAY ONGWRAY ANDWAY OU'REYAY USTJAY ESPERATEDAY OTAY INWAY ANWAY ARGUMENTWAY INCESAY IWAY AGREEDWAY ITHWAY IMHAY.
Here's an abbreviated version of the argument. Solipsism supposes that your subjective reality is the only reality. All "apparent" objective reality, i.e., all the appearences of an external world and interactions with external consciousnesses like your brother, mother, girlfriends are essentially inventions of your own mind.That's ontological (which basically no one holds), not methodological solipsism. Methodological solipsism doesn't posit that the external world is an invention of your own mind, but that the external world is a particular category of perception: It is mental content, and nothing of this categorical external world is available except as mental content.
Remember that this was a quick and dirty response to someone who appeared in a hurry. It was not unreasonable for me to equate solipsism with ontological (= metaphyscial) solipsism because that is the general assumed definition used by most people. It doesn't matter that almost nobody believes it. You can tell this if you read a lot of philosophy because for an argument to fall into solipsism is seen as a perjorative. methodoligical solipsism is not that discredited. Moreover, other philosophers and myself find this better incorporated in other idealistic approaches and nomenclatures. You really don't see that much on methodololgic solipsism and you see most its claims and deductions made more comprehensively elsewhere.
Occam's razor renders this ridiculous however. Because your mind has then invented histories that involve people like Einstein, Picasso, Rodin, Joyce, etc. who have done things that are verifiable from your subjective reference frame but you are nonetheless incapable of doing.Sorry, but that is plainly ridiculous as an argument against solipsism, and 'OCCAMS RAZOR' should never be used as an argument, it just makes it a display of philosophical amateurism.
It was a convenient shortcut in a pinch. The bottom line is, on a number of levels illustrated by my example, ont. solipsism does not pass any test of reasonableness which we could expand into many deep philosophical arguments. Occam's razor is a form of "reasonableness" argument. But in the end I usually find examples that appeal directly to human reason far superior to deep phil. discussion or the pretentious need to insert latin or other foreign words.
If your mind had the capability to create them and their works, how come you can't do math, painting, sculpture, writing, etc. as well as they can? How come you don't understand Urdu, Swahili, Tagalog, or Sanskrit yet there are people in your world who do and get along and can teach you to speak in their tongue if you want. You can explain it, but it involves adding many layers of needless complexity.nope... it just means you would be conceiving layers of meaning which you don't further elaborate. Plus, under solipsistic thought, the bold is utterly false: There are images of people who do, there are images of people teaching you a language coming into being in your imagination. It is certainly needless...
i don't understand your fIrst sentence - it certainly doesn't seem to refute anything. Your second on my bold is silly nitpicking. I think its clear what I meant in context to ont. solipsism. Images or not, they are connected with knowledge I cannot associate myself with directly or even understand without creating unreasonable demands on unnecessary complication for what - my supposed amusement?
Solpsism gets more complicated when you move to Berkeleyian idealism:facepalm: simplicity is now complication... who knew...
, which basically treats God as a solipsistic being and you are somehow a self-conscious entity within His reality. You are essentially Him and you, somehow compartmentalized.... unproblematic but irrelevant to the understanding of the concept not irrelevant but agree it's not necessary. Only put it out there in context to wider related forms of idealism.
Another needless complication that begs a mechanism that does not comport with the natural world we experience.:facepalm: 1. They aren't a needless complication (Berkeley's IRREFUTABLE conclusions), they are observations of fact. 2. I don't know what you mean about begs a mechanism; Idealism doesn't negate mechanical reality, it just observes that such mechanisms are a description of perceptions. 3. To claim that Idealism does not comport to the natural world of experience doesn't follow: The natural world is an experience, and that is what Idealism posits, and such is an undeniable fact.
My wording was sloppy, and still pertains to the ont-solip. context but you totally misinterpreted my meaning of mechanism I think. I don't even know what you mean by mechanical reality.
TU NO COMPREHENDERE IDEALISMUS...
OUYAY AREWAY AWAY ETENTIOUSPRAY ITTWAY.
ERAPHSAY ASWAY IGHTRAY ANDWAY OUYAY EREWAY ONGWRAY ANDWAY OU'REYAY USTJAY ESPERATEDAY OTAY INWAY ANWAY ARGUMENTWAY INCESAY IWAY AGREEDWAY ITHWAY IMHAY.
ficus
11th February 2012, 04:08 PM
discussion or the pretentious need to insert latin or other foreign words.I am Latin... :colbert:
nope... it just means you would be conceiving layers of meaning which you don't further elaborate. Plus, under solipsistic thought, the bold is utterly false: There are images of people who do, there are images of people teaching you a language coming into being in your imagination. It is certainly needless...
i don't understand your fIrst sentence - it certainly doesn't seem to refute anything. Your second on my bold is silly nitpicking. I think its clear what I meant in context to ont. solipsism. Images or not, they are connected with knowledge I cannot associate myself with directly or even understand without creating unreasonable demands on unnecessary complication for what - my supposed amusement?the bold is irrelevant in ontological solipsism, since the concept is that one is basically a lonely god having infinite imagination that can conceive games out of nothing. That's the meaning of the first sentence: You conceive a game (unknown languages and speakers of it), and you leave at that. Best refutation of onto.solip: 'that's infantile, and... why do you fantasize suffering?' Anyhow, ontological solipsism=schizophrenia.
I don't even know what you mean by mechanical reality.the physical.
OUYAY AREWAY AWAY ETENTIOUSPRAY ITTWAY.
ERAPHSAY ASWAY IGHTRAY ANDWAY OUYAY EREWAY ONGWRAY ANDWAY OU'REYAY USTJAY ESPERATEDAY OTAY INWAY ANWAY ARGUMENTWAY INCESAY IWAY AGREEDWAY ITHWAY IMHAY.meh...
nope... it just means you would be conceiving layers of meaning which you don't further elaborate. Plus, under solipsistic thought, the bold is utterly false: There are images of people who do, there are images of people teaching you a language coming into being in your imagination. It is certainly needless...
i don't understand your fIrst sentence - it certainly doesn't seem to refute anything. Your second on my bold is silly nitpicking. I think its clear what I meant in context to ont. solipsism. Images or not, they are connected with knowledge I cannot associate myself with directly or even understand without creating unreasonable demands on unnecessary complication for what - my supposed amusement?the bold is irrelevant in ontological solipsism, since the concept is that one is basically a lonely god having infinite imagination that can conceive games out of nothing. That's the meaning of the first sentence: You conceive a game (unknown languages and speakers of it), and you leave at that. Best refutation of onto.solip: 'that's infantile, and... why do you fantasize suffering?' Anyhow, ontological solipsism=schizophrenia.
I don't even know what you mean by mechanical reality.the physical.
OUYAY AREWAY AWAY ETENTIOUSPRAY ITTWAY.
ERAPHSAY ASWAY IGHTRAY ANDWAY OUYAY EREWAY ONGWRAY ANDWAY OU'REYAY USTJAY ESPERATEDAY OTAY INWAY ANWAY ARGUMENTWAY INCESAY IWAY AGREEDWAY ITHWAY IMHAY.meh...
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét