In psychology, not worrying about or assuming that minds exist led to behaviorism.

The point was to ONLY rely on empirical evidence (what I can see you are doing) rather than introspection.

Support for it? All that exists is an inability to directly access the experiences you (not me) are having.

The model that includes you having the stuff we call the mind (feelings and thoughts) is considerably better in making predictions.

This runs counter to the only reason I can think of to embrace an agnostic view of whether or not I am the only being that thinks, feels and experiences.

As I stated, everyone seems to know that they cannot determine with certainty whether their mind is the only thing.

btw, I don't buy this myself. I think the assumption that there are other people like me is necessary in order for me to be fully human. While the solipsist may be able to treat things like "looking before crossing the street" just as anyone else would, I think his attitude toward other people is bound to be different if he views them as mental figments rather than objective realities. That solipsistic attitude is bound to affect his feelings toward them and his dealings with them. I suspect his relationship with other people becomes less human and more sterile.


PairTheBoard

Most people make the leap of "acts broadly similarly" to "likely is made up of the same stuff" quite easily.

Luckily, it is a built-in feature and philosophy has got nothing to do with it.

If you believe its all just one mind then whatever good deed you do, you are doing back unto yourself, and whatever bad deed you do, you are doing back unto yourself. Your level of responsibility toward others is not necessarily affected depending on how you interpret solipsism and what conclusions you draw from it.

Some may draw a more narcissistic interpretation from it, while others may draw a more altruistic one. Ultimately, you can arrive at similar ethical frameworks to utilitarianism and other empirically-inspired frameworks.

How does death test or provide relevant information about the broad definition of God that you mentioned?

But to derail my own question, since we are talking about a proof or test or evidence, I am not convinced this kind thing can actually lead to proof or a test or evidence -- so it is really a dodge. It is a bit like saying that my dog knows the answer to every question, he just can't communicate it to humans. Even if it is true, it does not constitute an answer to any questions. So to posit that there is proof, it is just unavailable to us, is to acknowledge that there is no proof.

People looking for "no god"

Paradox?

One must assume that another exists in order to predict their behaviour? Same with physical objects? One must assume that a moon exists in order to predict its behaviour? Is it easier if you remove any scepticism? how is one epistemological assumption better at making predictions than another?
That may be so but that uncertainty perhaps deserves a bit more curiosity. More than that, it may keep us humble, by reminding us that no matter how much we learn about the universe, the question that's closest to home will continue to elude us for a very long time.

god doesnt exists

its is you and your beleifs, alone

I preffer believe in god, not the "christian god" or the "musulman god"

Just the "being", and for "being" i mean you can think, understand, live this life

Are you for real (as in serious) to say that to assume others have brains isnt an advantage over the jerkoff bs of solipsism? For example isnt it possible to know a property your brain has that you can use to anticipate behavior by other brains (by assuming they have it too, especially if this is really the first time noticed by anyone eg if you are the discoverer), something you can never assume if you took the position that all that exists is your mind. Nobody limits your choices of what to see as property of your mind that may have a universal character especially if you study how the brain works. To assume others have it too then as if they were independent identical (for the core things) brains proves something testable.

It is totally trivial to convince yourself that the others are exactly like you in the important things and that they follow similar growth patterns from conception to mature old age.

So the solipsist is a moron unless he is claiming that the only issue here is whether this is all real independent systems interacting (in a loose working sense of the term independent) or its all a very thorough simulation with the others not existing as anything other than input to your brain but in such an elaborate efficient way that practically it has the same properties as far as tests can tell with the real thing (so far) and the chance it was all made up for your benefit is exceptionally small given how hard in general it proves to simulate something so well. Additionally even a simulation is a real thing in a way. The simulation ought to be happening in some real system anyway (eg a solar system size supercomputer lol) and given the computational capacities of the human brain (your brain) it can be easily seen that the simulation cannot be happening in your own brain but requires at least another much bigger system. By that i mean that given the biology of the human brain we know (even if that is seen from the perspective of what one brain knows) the information rate arriving in your senses exceeds by many orders of magnitude the capacity of your own body to generate such information. So there has got to be something else besides you generating that information because your brain cannot handle all of it at once.

We can use detectors to collect that information and their operation is consistent with existing and registering data even when we are not monitoring them. Their behavior is identical when watched macroscopically than when not watched. The process of watching them can be randomized too with key input in the randomization eg a particle decay occurring inside our own body. So for the cruel game to persist it needs to also be able to control decays inside your body to anticipate your observation to arrange the "movie" to not have plot holes.

So all the solipsist is left to claim is that all this is a movie with us as the main hero. Which of course it is in a way (but its a dynamical movie with many actors). For it to be a complete fabrication that exists in our mind is insanely unreasonable given that our mind can be shown to have limits that cannot be exceeded and the complexity of all that is happening in order to be fabrication of that limited brain (same as a dream say - where all is a fabrication- that is never as real and vivid and consistent as being awake) is completely unreasonable (i mean your brain is unable to simulate the rest of the universe and its own body to produce consistent enough observations of all that is happening, the computational effort for this entire system to remain consistent exceeds the natural properties of that brain).

To assume that indeed your brain is limited and the other things exist independently and described by natural laws and logic is also an advantage in predicting its (the system's) future properties.

The solipsist has to assume such a massively larger set of propositions in order for all that exists to be observed the way it does that the mental game he/she plays quickly becomes ridiculous in complexity. Essentially it becomes so complex that in order to remain self consistent it requires from that brain to be a huge computational system that basic tests easily show it isnt.

So you see what i mean? If all that existed was your brain, that brain is unable to simulate the rest of the universe so well and consistently in order for the input to remain so consistent to the assumptions of independence (that work well so far). The brain simply doesnt have the needed physical properties for that to happen. You are forced to see your brain as the rest of the universe too to survive this line of thinking (you need to extend your physical range as brain i mean ie your brain covers the rest of the galaxy etc too ie its not just some 1.5 kgr matter inside a head). But it can also be easily seen that you do not control that rest of the universe the same way you control your own limited body.


Stop defending (even as devil's advocate) the poor mental thinking that is behind any philosophical notions of solipsism that easily prove intellectually lazy (hence a possible comparison to mental masturbation). Stop thinking that its not falsifiable. It is very easily falsifiable. The idea that others exist independently of our own brain is not only testable but it has advantages over the alternative in predicting future observations. Such advantages are not available to a solipsist that has to remain unable to predict because after all he/she cannot be allowed to make such projections that have to depend on the assumption that the physics required (the laws) is universal for all these bodies and consistent with models of independent existence.

So maybe an external device is generating the input. Or maybe your brain is creating the simulation and also misleading you about the computational power of your brain.

But I agree with the sentiment (if you are expressing it; otherwise, I'm putting it forth myself) that the kind of solipsism that makes sense is indistinguishable from non-solipsism, and so while we can't know if it is true or not, it doesn't matter.

Notice also that my brain has to remain consistent about how it misleads me too. As clearly we have plenty of examples that the others have corrected that brain's mental calculations/projections etc. Essentially one is forced to see as your brain being much larger than the testable 1.5kgr it only really is.

The solipsist is unable to do any science basically. Because to do such science requires to accept the independent reality of the other systems or to assume that they exist in your mind in such a consistent way to the independent model that the computational power required to maintain consistency far exceeds that brain's capacity, so that brain is not just 1.5kgr but something bigger. But how do you test how bigger if still unable to propose limits that would instantly bring you to the original position anyway and require further additional extension later too. I mean if your brain is all of earth, magically convincing you its only in your head though (but extending to control the rest outside too to remain consistent) eventually you will recognize it needs to be even larger that all of earth. So your brain is the entire universe ultimately. But magically it is the entire universe and still in a way that you have absolutely no advantage in predicting the future (ie if others are also part of that brain you remain unable to predict their behavior).

If as a solipsist you model your world poorly then your models will produce poor predictions. However there's no reason a solipsist can't model his world in a way that makes good predictions yet does not include assumptions about an objective reality. For example, there's no reason his model cannot include the scientific method.

Therefore, it amounts to a strawman argument to insist the solipsist must be modelling his world according to poor methods that you've chosen for him.


PairTheBoard

Give me a model of the world that (a good) solipsist uses to produce results ie do science and cut the bs. In particular tell me what the size and range of the brain is for the solipsist. Can he/she make any assumption that we or he/she can test? The macroscopic independent reality of others is very testable. Only at the quantum level you do not have objective reality the same way we do macroscopically.

For example right now i can tell you there is a moon out there even if i cannot see it. I can see a neutrino profile consistent with its existence on the other side of the earth. I can also check its gravitational attraction etc. (and just in case that proves weak signal for you because it requires sensitive measurements you can take the sun as example when you are at night say, you still get solar neutrinos that you do not get from another direction in the sky for example in such distribution levels) (or use the moon again for cosmic rays eg muons during a very clouded moment during day)

Just define for me the brain according to a solipsist. What is it? More than 1.5 kgr or matter?

You've made quite of few posts here giving scientific analysis of one thing and another. I don't recall in any of your posts you mentioning that your analysis is based on the assumption that there is an objective reality. You get by quite well without ever stating that assumption. I believe a solipsist can make exactly the same analysis only in his case not only does he not state the assumption, he doesn't even make it.

Case in point is Madnak who I mentioned explained this kind of solipsism at great length in the thread I linked to above. Have you read that thread? Had it not been for that thread we would have never known Madnak was a solipsist because in every other debate on this forum in which he participated - and there were many - his arguments were that of a stone cold physicalist.

I think your arguments on this topic amount to begging the question. You insist on the conclusion that a solipsist cannot model his world like a physicalist because your premise is that a solipsist cannot model his world like a physicalist.




PairTheBoard

Wrong. Everything i do as a scientist depends on the existence of the things i study and interact with that is independent of my brain and not a figment of my imagination.

I resent what you are doing which is pathetic coming from you in particular because you are trivializing what i say without paying the slightest attention to my arguments (look at your last sentence for example, what is this? ).

I asked you to define the brain for the solipsist. What is it? Is it not a 1.5 kgr mass biological object inside a skull? Is he thinking its something else that is 1 ton of material? An entire planet maybe? What is it? Define it. The solipsist must be able to define what his brain is (a human brain in fact in general) in terms of size and details. If he is unable to do that then he is unable to do any science because he allows his brain to be whatever he likes it to be in order to remain the idiot that he is in rejecting the naturally obvious based on experience and tests that all humans are similar and their brains are found in their heads and once you damage them or mess with them or manipulate them it becomes evident or even proves lethal and no other brain remains that can interact and prove its existence once that brain is no longer functioning. How did this brain grow up to be the thinker it is today by the way? And why children that are not taught anything (feral kids) are unable to think such things (math, language, abstract thoughts too complex etc). Did that one brain of the solipsist create everything from nothing without the input of other agents/brains?

It is profoundly insulting to me that you didnt get my argument that in order for the solipsist to defend his position that all is in his brain, the computational capacities needed by that brain (to maintain the illusion of a made up world by that brain and that brain alone) exceed and violate the physical properties of this biological system (properties that we have tested already). So we and the solipsist cannot have the same science. In fact maybe he cant have any science. We already disagree on how big the brain is and what it can do and the fact that there is a bound in its entropy/information/content/processing speed etc. That is just the beginning. A nightmare of problems emerge out of it if we continue it now.

If madnak is a true solipsist for real (is this the metaphysical type?) then he is a moron, even an intelligent, smart, educated moron that can be demolished (depending on the kind or level of solipsism he embraces/endorses) and shown as fraud additionally in brief time or shown to be nothing more than a proponent of a "theory" that nothing can ever be known. Why then call that solipsism? Its bs to call it solipsism (i mean i can create a trillion different -isms now based on it that are identical to religious beliefs that are always trying to hide behind imaginary ignorance). You simply call it the philosophy of complete (or broad) agnosticism (my term, lets find if there is a real better one already).

Lets in fact open a new thread and ask can anything be known with certainty and what exactly defines then any other degree of certainty short of 100%? What is knowledge? It would be interesting to demolish even that philosophy then there or prove that its worthless because as it is all scientists are skeptics and they will gladly reframe the science if it is needed and new evidence makes it necessary. But until that happens they "know" that energy/mass are conserved, charge is conserved etc...Can we even know that for sure? Well there are tests done every year to check for example if the charge of the photon is nonzero (they are now at q<10^-35 e). So can you claim that you know the charge of the photon is 0? Be my guest and claim you cant know that and also take the position that you will be able to claim this indefinitely. But define me at least at some point what is enough proof that you know something and how can one ever dream of falsifying things without having anything dependable to argue with because nothing is left to be trusted as known. Do yourself a favor and do not call that solipsism. Its something much broader. Its something that questions the absolute nature of knowledge in science. But that is science itself already doing it the healthy way without embracing complete paralysis.

Basically i resent taking as starting position what can or cannot be known (its not scientific in its nature as a position). Let the ultimate progress of the scientific epic decide that.

I'm not an expert on Solipsism. I just read the wiki article on it,

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...l#post46487119

and I don't think I've said anything too inaccurate yet. But I don't want to misrepresent something I don't know that much about. I think Madnak gave a decent defense of his version of Solipsism so if you're interested how different versions of the philosophy handle your complaint about it I suggest you read the SMP link I provided and the Wiki article on it. You're certainly much more competent than I in carrying out a thorough investigation of the philosophy. I've provided some additional links for you below.

btw, I just took out a ruler and measured the length of my thumb at about 3 inches. I assume the ruler and my thumb are objectively real but I don't think I needed to make that assumption to make the measurement.


Some further links to study:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/

http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-...solipsism.html
(With links to the following literature)

Related newspaper, magazine, and trade journal articles from Questia

(Including press releases, facts, information, and biographies)


Philosophy Today New Perspectives on Metaphysical Solipsism
Magazine article from: Philosophy Today ...mentioned above, epistemological solipsism has been almost as overwhelmingly endorsed as metaphysical solipsism has been overwhelmingly condemned...dividing line between the two solipsisms, how can there be such a...dismissive towards metaphysical solipsism, rather than being more dismissive...

College Literature "I Feel Close to Myself": Solipsism and Us Imperialism in Tim O'brien's the...
Magazine article from: College Literature ...consis- tently claim its ethnocentric solipsism reinforces American imperialism.One...that knowledge in large part through its solipsism. Like many Vietnam narratives obsessed...experiences. His work does tend toward solipsism. In this respect, undoubtedly these...

St Louis Post-Dispatch (MO) Spellbound `Solipsism' Trips Up Ladue Seventh-Grader in National Bee
Newspaper article from: St Louis Post-Dispatch (MO) ...may have been struck by a tinge of solipsism - the word he flubbed Wednesday in the first round of the National Spelling Bee. Solipsism is the belief that nothing exists but...substituted an "e" for the first "i" in solipsism after mishearing a pronunciation. He...

Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy Guilt: Facing the Problem of Ethical Solipsism
Magazine article from: Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy ...take seriously the problem of ethical solipsism in relation to the morally central concept...question in the context of the problem of solipsism, I will try to enhance our understanding...from us. Therefore, a kind of ethical solipsism seems to follow from relatively basic...

Philosophy Today Methodological Solipsism and the Multiverse
Magazine article from: Philosophy Today ...addressed. My procedure then will be to show that the objection can in fact be met, using the so-called "methodological solipsism" approach introduced by Hans Driesch and employed subsequently by such theorists as Fodor and Putnam. The Many-Universes...

Irish University Review: a journal of Irish Studies Self-Consciousness, Solipsism, and Storytelling: John Banville's Debt to...
Magazine article from: Irish University Review: a journal of Irish Studies ...influenced by Beckett. Much too much so'. (11) Ben White's sense of failure, his metafictional games, and his overriding solipsism are indeed heavily indebted to Beckett's prose. Hence, Ingo Berensmeyer is no doubt right in claiming that this novel...

The William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal Constitutional Solipsism: Toward a Thick Doctrine of Article III Duty; or Why...

Magazine article from: The William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal INTRODUCTION 956 I. HISTORY 964 A. Nonprecedential Status Rules; Delegated Adjudication; and Abbreviated Appelle Processes 964 B. Living History: What Really Goes On in the Sausage Factory 972 C. History of Unconstitutionality Jurisprudence 977 II. CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS 984 A. Predecessor

The Humanist The Church of the Greater Solipsism
Magazine article from: The Humanist Much of the secular world has focused on problems of traditional organized authoritarian religion, but has had little concern for the equally problematic modern religious orientation toward the self. Religion for most is but a thin veneer over what is really a pragmatic, inward-facing life. In The
The World and I The Bard of Stay More : Donald Harington Calls His Writing "A Cure for...

Magazine article from: The World and I Edwin T. Arnold is professor of English at Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina. He is editor of an issue of the Southern Quarterly (Winter 2002) devoted to Donald Harington. One of the first things people note about Donald Harington is that he is almost completely deaf. He

Philosophy Today The Relevance of Nonsymbolic Cognition to Husserl's Fifth Meditation
Magazine article from: Philosophy Today ...that phenomenology entails transcendental solipsism. He judges, and rightly so, that the...accusation that phenomenology is transcendental solipsism. Unfortunately, his placing of an allusion to solipsism at the beginning rather than at the conclusion...


I'm sure there are some decent books out there somewhere by professional philosophers defending different versions of solipsism if your interested.


PairTheBoard

First of all i appreciate the time you took to research and provide these references that will educate everyone interested further and maybe all of us in fact.

It is important to me though (for you) to see my point regarding the brain and what it can do and how there is a (real physics) problem if i force myself to think the brain is all there is and the rest is not real in an objective manner independent of the observer (ie that brain).

If we allow ourselves to learn anything how do we do it? We experiment and learn (from day one as newborns) by projecting what probably happens to future anticipated expected results (induction) until this fails and then we try more intricate pattern seeking and new inductions based on other available through experiences "knowledge". It is never certain at that early primitive level even if it may arrive at something certain that will ultimately survive all future tests. Billions of humans have existed so far (over 100 bil i think) but the game is (or appears to be) the same a single brain plays and in fact probably any intelligent life form anywhere (from the science we already think we know about what life is). We learn by experimenting. We do not really prove that what we learn is certain 100%. We see the sun go up every day and assume it will do it forever but clearly that is not true as we learn more about eg stellar evolution. But we arrive at finer versions of truth by trusting what we already "know" to build more, even if we never really know 100% that what we think is a law is a permanent truth. You cannot arrive at the stellar evolution model that predicts the sun will end one day if you cannot allow yourself to trust the other parts of the knowledge system that we have built and which we call eg physics/astrophysics and see where the math takes you etc (eg EM, nuclear physics, statistical physics etc). And still some of those steps may not prove 100% correct in the future or even knowable eventually. For example maybe one day we experience a phase transition in this universe (or prove unable to prove we cant) that makes it possible to leak energy in some other dimension (not proponent of any of this) and appear as if we are violating energy conservation in our world. The resulting physics will be altered (maybe even dramatically) because of this.

If the solipsist and I however share the same science then my claim is that the brain itself, a 1.5 kgr object, is unable to process as much information as the world requires to remain consistent with what the brain observes if the brain is all there is and creates all this illusion similarly to how it creates a dream. Dreams in fact are never that perfectly detailed and "realistic" as true moments of awake state type consciousness. Can you see what i mean by that? Lets say i look and see 100 billion stars rotate around the earth as the earth is rotating around axis, around sun and around the galaxy etc. If the brain was responsible for producing that picture of the 100 bil stars (pretend we have a big enough screen to register all with needed accuracy) and update their relative position in the sky every minute to accuracy of millionths of degrees it would be needed to perform so many calculations and to know the exact physics of all solar systems in all the galaxy (to account for all perturbations etc) that the brain itself, that 1.5kgr object cannot handle it (not even a supercomputer would). So for the solipsist to say we cant know that there is more than this brain it requires to deviate with me from what he thinks the brain can do to lead to what is observed and that makes his version of a brain physically unreasonable. The other brains we study do not have the properties this guy is forcing his brain and my brain to have. Furthermore he and i can both verify that we cannot calculate things so fast at a conscious level. If he assumes that the neurons are responsible for what is observed and processed, there are not enough neurons in his brain to justify what is being observed at the speed its observed if the origin is internal. The internal consistency of what is observed cannot be a result of a limited brain with the qualities medical science offers for such object and physics also can produce as ultimate bounds.

The same arguments can be produced if we use the world of literature or recorded history as examples. How can the brain reproduce all literature it will read in a consistent to each other manner or reproduce scientific results of topics it doesnt yet "understand" (because it requires more knowledge/formal education). How can the brain reconcile the well correlated fact that the main way it improves most of its life is by interacting with other brains and their work not by isolation from sources of information!!! Does the brain faithfully reproduce consistently all the work that has yet to understand its meaning at a conscious level and which ultimately would have required even if secretly calculated unconsciously a level of computation that is unprecedented/(unsupported by) for its size and other properties. If the brain simulates internally and consistently what is observing then its doing a job inconsistent with its physical properties. So his version of brain (what it is and how it works) and mine have to diverge at that point.

I do not need to do that with stars or books read etc. I can do it even with (much harder things) the molecules of air that strike my face if i had enough detectors to be able to trace individual molecules within QM levels of accuracy. Basically you may say you do not need to assume objective reality to measure your hand but measuring your hand, the full experience requires for the brain to simulate an entire room (imagine measuring your hand while immersed in grains of rice) this hand exists with all these details you conveniently ignore to make your point but a physicist cannot ignore really because i can create an equivalent system like the stars i mentioned or even 1000 grains of rice that i throw in a table while measuring the hand lol and calculate their trajectories as they interact and scatter and my eyes record it all (a complex but doable project numerically but so hard and detailed that exceeds the computational capacity of the human brain - for example even today when we simulate galaxies we do not really simulate 10^11 stars and yet the brain would have to be able to do that).

So i can convince myself my brain is not what i have imagined it to be if i force myself to continue to think my brain is all there is. Or i am forced to take the position that i can never really know all the properties of my brain, it has hidden possibilities that i can never know. Why should i take such a position though? Isnt that like religion? In what way will such position ever allow anyone to do science? If you cannot trust any knowledge then why argue to gain more knowledge? All your arguments will be based on ignorance and uncertainty and will have no safe merit. We must introduce in fact probabilities in our statements. But how do we do it outside math? How certain is the law of conservation of energy for example?

So i do not see what the solipsist is left with here that can survive other than the claim that many things we take for granted are not 100% certain today. But that is already a position science allows by remaining an open minded enterprise of knowledge seeking/refining/updating through further never ending testing and theoretical work. But we cannot yet prove that we cannot know everything about the physics of the universe. A final complete theory may be possible where the knowledge becomes certain and the certainty itself is tied to the brain existing and having the testable properties it has. And the solipsist is already assuming the terminally convinced position that he cannot know there is anything other than his brain. How ironic indeed that the person that takes the position we cant know many things for sure assumes that we can know that thing about the world and the brain. How dogmatically religious even!

Do you see now my problem? The solipsist is not offering science anything is not already self aware of. It is however enforcing a defacto statement about what can be known that is not provided with a proof. And this is in its best form. The others are all problematic and shown to be in trouble easily (ie that only my brain exists vs i cannot prove that anything more than my brain exists for sure).

Let me also appear arrogant when in fact i am the opposite in saying that i dislike reading philosophy written by people that know less physics than i do (and i want to know a lot more as it is), however brilliant they are otherwise. You cannot produce top quality philosophy without knowing as much science as physically possible for that brain and era.

Let that simply imply that i trust more the ideas about the world and what can be known about it, Bohr or Einstein had than Popper.

I'll give some thoughts about this but you should realize I'm speaking out of turn here. You should really read what professional philosophers say who actually know something about the topic.

First of all, the solipsist works on the assumption that his mind is all there is. That's different from saying "the brain is all there is. I understand you objecting that if the solipsist models the world like a physicalist would then he would have to accept that his brain produces his mind. I believe the solipsist differentiates between that part of his mind which you and I normally think of as our mind, and that part of his mind that is the source of what we perceive as sensory input from the outside world. Let's call these solipsist mind parts his "Normal Mind" and his "Source Mind".

A standard objection to solipsism asks, why can't the solipsist make things happen by just thinking them to happen? For example, his mind allows him to fly through the air in dreams while asleep so why can't his mind do this for him when he's awake? One answer is, maybe that's possible but he just doesn't know how to do it. But I think a solipsist who models his world like a physicalist would reply that his Source Mind apparently produces his world of experience according to rules which scientists call "laws of nature".

So I think such a solipsist would argue that while there is a relationship between his Normal Mind and the brain, and the product of his Source Mind appears to obey certain unbreakable rules, the nature of his Source Mind remains more of a mystery.

I believe most people have concluded that the strongest solipsism that rejects objective reality because it's not only unproven but unprovable is philosophically indefensible. Remember, I'm talking about a kind of "weak solipsism" based on the principle of parsimony. i.e. Don't make unnecessary assumptions. Another objection to this kind of weak solipsism is that the assumption of objective reality should not be rejected via Occam's Razor because it's an assumption that provides more explanatory power.

I think that's a strong objection but I'm not sure I buy it. I don't think the solipsist being left in the position of his "mystery of the Source Mind" is that much different than the position of the scientist when asked, why does the world obey natural laws? The scientist works on the assumption that these natural laws he has modeled via the scientific method, will continue to operate as they have in the past - thus making his models useful. But the scientist can only assume that the world will not begin to operate magically tomorrow. He cannot assure us it won't by basing that assurance on the explanatory power of assuming objective reality. Who knows if God might not step in and change everything. Or whatever is behind it all.

Once again, rather than objecting to my poor presentation of a defense for solipsism I urge you to read what professional philosophers have to say about it.


PairTheBoard

btw,

I object to solipsism on moral grounds. There are certain things I don't want to do to other people because it's just not right. The reason it's not right goes beyond utilitarian concerns or concerns about my empathetic responses. The reason has everything to do with the fact that other people are objectively real and not just "parts of my mind".


PairTheBoard

I think that there is an implicit assumption that the objects you mention exist merely in the fact that you name them.

What universe? What us? What is the value of this humbleness in relationship to the objects you, I and us? You might find that occasionally making explicit your implicit assumptions (e.g. that the universe exists more or less as it appears to and that being humble is an ideal to aspire to) from time to time has some practical use.

Of course, it wouldn't have any practical use if there were no objects other than my sensory impressions and thoughts.

Would the Cliffs Notes version be "without an object to be harmed, harm cannot occur"?

I think a solipsist might say, "as part of my mind, other people are part of me. So in harming them I harm myself. Thus the object harmed is Me."

However, I don't think that "harming a part of my Mind" or "harming a part of Me", or even "harming Myself" is morally equivalent to "harming another person who is objectively real".


PairTheBoard

PairTheBoard, what kind of physics does a solipsist have? Is a solipsist able to know eg his brain is inside his head and the mass of the head or his body? Is the solipsist able to claim that his brain is nowhere else than inside his head? Can the solipsist do experiments to his brain?

I think you should at least read up enough on solipsism to find out exactly what it is you're objecting to. It's a collection of philosophies so the best explanations of what the philosophies are will be written by philosophers. They can tell you the different versions of the philosophy, arguments supporting it, arguments against it, and the counter arguments. Your objection may not be a new one.

I think your objection that the brain does not have the capacity to produce what amounts to a simulation of objective reality may have some merit as an attack on some versions of solipsism. Possibly those which talk about the subconscious mind. But then they may not care to model their solipsistic world like a physicalist. They also might have counter arguments addressing your objection more directly.

I don't think Madnak worried about where the so called "sensory input" which he experiences comes from. I believe he just chalked it up to being unknown. I believe for him, all the brain has to handle is the experience of it. I think he did model his mind according to some kind of upper and lower part for conceptual convenience to differentiate between thoughts and experience. It got too confusing for me to follow though. He explains most of it in just the first couple of pages of the thread Zeno recently bumped "On Solipsism".

However, it appears from your quote above that you must simply disdain all philosophy because it's produced by philosophers who don't know enough physics to do philosophy. If that's the case, why bother with any of this?


PairTheBoard

See my posts above.

PTB