I once got abducted by Aliens while I was tripping on magic mushrooms. I now believe they're all around us.

In a separate instance while on LSD, I spoke to Zeus. I now believe that the God of Thunder is real.

The alternative explanation, which is far more unlikely (obviously), is that I was simply tripping and that my experiences under such substances are completely unrelated to the real world.

Also, because hallucinogens aren't well understood by Science yet, until they are, I feel free to believe in whatever nonsense they expose me to.

Does this make me spiritual or am I doing it wrong?

I never ate enough to make my face melt, but I've had some pretty cool experiences on hallucinogens. Best I can describe it is almost like dreaming while fully awake. I think it's something most people could benefit from psychologically, for the change of perspective if nothing else, but I'd be wary of trusting any grand revelations while tripping.

That said, I did once mix too many things and fall into a deep oblivion that upon returning and spending a full minute* to remember who I was, caused me to seriously rethink the possibility of an afterlife.

*the first half was spent believing I was my friend, "Hippie John."

Hope you got over it. Otherwise it looks like a total -ev.

This is quite common. There's no words for that sensation when you can't feel any attachment to time itself or to who you are/what you are.

For me, not necessarily hinting at afterlife, but more so at solipsism. Not that they're mutually exclusive either.

If you could prove God doesn't exist this would be accepted by many but the problem is it's impossible to prove God doesn't exist. You can only prove a God with some specific characteristics (which contradicts) can't exist but you can't prove a deistic God doesn't exist. For example you can prove the God from Bible can't be good and fair since it sends people without free will in hell forever for things they are not responsible. However if the goal of hell is purification and the hell isn't eternal then the God of Bible can still be good. Or if the hell is a lie and it was used only for deterrent of evil acts the God can still be good. No matter how many condradictions and fallacies are in the Bible you still can't prove the God of Bible doesn't exist since the errors in the Bible can be man made or even intentional from God so he can see if we lose our faith.

Yet you don't walk out into traffic without looking.

Also, there are no words for the sensation when you look at something orange.

Why would someone walk anywhere without looking?

You have it backwards. Why would the solipsist look at all? Certainly not to avoid traffic, right?

The solipsist shouldnt look at the traffic because he deserves to go to hell (if anyone ever did lol) as he is a dildo idiot.

As for orange sure there are words. Juice! Holland! Hey carrots for snacks yey! Or damn i needed more red! The sensation is all those things together that beg for the qualifier to become exact feelings (like the above that are only probabilities at the moment the orange is spotted waiting to find what other properties that orange object has to form a complete feeling about it based on what you desire at the time).

Why would the solipsist not look? Why would the solipsist not avoid traffic?

I was being flippant by asking a question that's equally irrelevant to yours.

To conflate solipsism with omnipotence is to utterly misunderstand every type of solipsism.

My question was completely relevant to solipsism. You might not like the line of questioning, but that hasn't a thing to do with whether it is relevant.

You, as a solipsist, have no justification for looking both ways that I am aware of. I'd enjoy hearing what the justification is, from a solipsist's standpoint, as I am sure that you have one.

I said nothing about omnipotence. I implied nothing about omnipotence. I didn't even glance in the general direction of omnipotence.

Granted, you are correct that if one were to conflate omnipotence with solipsism, one would be demonstrating a lack of even the foggiest notion of at least one of the concepts.

Were you just making a random true statement that had nothing at all to do with anything I said? I am cool with that, but it did seem that you were responding to something that I said.

We had an extensive thread on solipsism back in 2009 where madnak gave a vigorous defense of at least his version of the philosophy.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...ipsism-546588/


PairTheBoard

There is intelligent life on earth!

None detected.

Do he has justification for not looking????!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He was joking. Even though it pertains to omnipotence too.


Now second half. Barca vs Real Madrid.

Generally, people aren't expected to justify doing things that they don't do. I am assuming both that he is not a figment of my imagination AND that he indulges his irrational belief that "traffic" exists outside of his mind.

I am nearly certain that he doesn't indulge in "joking."

He is one of the more serious things that might or might not exist outside of my mind.

Why shouldn't a solipsist have to look both ways before crossing a street? Why do you imply that he would (or should) be exempt from doing so?

On what basis do you believe that a solipsist should have some sort of powers to alter reality/the particular framework in which he finds himself?

I'm asking you this not because I'm dodging the question but because I find the question to be irrelevant. My (and almost every other) solipsist POV is not one that argues that nothing exists outside of the mind. It simply argues that nothing can be proven to exist outside of the mind. And obviously our standards of 'proof' and definition of 'mind' will be very different as well.

Since you're insistent however, perhaps it does have some relevance from your POV. As such, I'd like to first understand that POV before I continue.

I believe this was the version of solipsism madnak defended in the thread I linked to. As I recall, his position was that the life of the mind is all we have evidence for and therefore positing some kind of objective reality outside the mind amounts to an assumption which the solipsist sees as unnecessary. So working on the principle that it's best to minimize unnecessary assumptions at the core of one's personal philosophy the solipsist rejects it.

However, seeing the experienced world as part of the mind rather than some kind of objective reality need not change the way a solipsist deals with that world. He remains aware of how that world works, regardless of his philosophical view of its nature. Whether that world is part of his mind or an objective reality, things that happen in it produce pleasure and pain according to what he has learned from experience about how that world works. And so he acts accordingly.


PairTheBoard

Precisely.

He should be exempt from doing so unless he believes that the external world actually exists.

What "reality in which he finds himself"?

I am fairly sure that you just described "solipsist" to mean "everyone who has pondered about epistemology for more than 5 minutes." It is just ponderous to add "assuming that reality exists more or less as it appears to exist" at the end of each thought or sentence.

It seems that "proof" means here "determine with certainty" and "mind" here means "whatever is the thing that is doing the experiencing."

From my POV, I see no value to explicitly acknowledging (or focussing on the fact) that my beer might not really exist, or exist in the same way that it seems to exist.*

You seem to think there is some value in doing so. I am genuinely interested in what you think the value is in the exercise.

*outside of a possible career writing sci fi stories and the inherent fun of confusing adolescent minds.

What would convince a solipsist that the world exists independently of their brain? If you cant answer that then go fack yourselves all solipsists worldwide.

You have to understand my "rage" against solipsism as a physicist is as fundamental a rage can ever hope to be.

If you can show that logic is impossible to be true you could rationally convince them. I've done that once, but I doubt it was long lasting.

But I doubt it needs convincing as they already believe in it, the problem would be to show that it's rational.

You're right. Whether or not your beer exists in not particularly interesting. What's interesting is whether or not other minds exist. If you entertain the thought that they dont from time to time - without fully accepting it - you'll immediately begin to see suppprt for it everywhere. Just as one does under the opposite assumption (that they do). After a while of doing this it becomes very difficult to honestly choose between the assumptions because you begin to see the same level of support through either lens. SMP'ers aren't too fond of ideas that veer too far from empiricism and that's understandable because it might be corrupting the youth and an execution of Socrates might just be what's needed again.

I'm not a solipsist but I do indulge the thought perhaps more so than a lot of people. In order to convince them, I'd imagine you'd have to show that the principles of reason are not fundamentally true - without using those same principles to do so.