My smartphone and the laziness it induces.

Solipsism is a tautology. Read Wittgenstein.

So is the fact that experience doesn't end.

Wittgenstein spent a lot of time in the trenches.

Too much time in the trenches.

He almost took it seriously.

Solipsism is deluded.

Realism ftw.

Look what a bombshell does.

The short story 'All you zombies.' Or the film Predestination outlines an interesting take on the subject. Other minds exist but are not present.

Deluded and solipsism don't belong in the same sentence.

I, I put it there.

Being a harmless center of the universe is not so bad.

So the tautology said to the question beggar, "That's a pretty iffy hypothetical".


PairTheBoard

A totalitarian walked into the solipsist bar and totally denied their selves.

The long wait is nearly over. Dramatic action on the curling sheets is just a few weeks away.


PairTheBoard

Solipsism is the ultimate worse garbage total crap philosophical position on anything.

Worse than deplorable Trumpism even.

It is so f%#ed-up that even if the world is a simulation and it started from a know nothing crying baby with no memory of birth etc to everything known now without anything outside that brain having a role in it (a totally moronic unreasonable sequence - if all started from within - of events given all the garbage of endless stupid time wasting procedures and losses, unpleasant to brain or painful or boring happenings etc ) then the instant question is who created the simulation and that right away implies other brains and also demands a way this single brain came to be as a structure.

Theory of everything and self consistency of natural law will demolish solipsism for good.

Totally agree, mate. Solipsism is ****ed up beyond I don't know what.

On the other hand I may always have existed. Would that make me god? Oh, forgot, I imagine I was born and will die.

Must dig up that old thread.

My solipsism ring is, the one ring to rule them all! My precious!!!

Bankroll management idiot Elijah Wood.

Don't look up the meaning of 'mother!' before you watch it, and then see how long it takes you recognise the allegories.

The main problem i have with all kinds of bs theories in Philosophy (which is unfortunately a decent fraction of it) is the angle approached.

It should matter to argue why indeed its not all in one's mind and it is responsibility of science to care about all remote probabilities. But do not make it a theory. Make it a project to argue against.

Do not argue for God or lack of God for example. Investigate instead the origin of life and structure in this universe. Let that tell you the story.

Philosophy often takes positions that are unacceptable as argued. It finds places that answers are impossible to deliver with 100% conviction yet and argues for them instead of arguing against them. How comfortable!

Why is that any different than arguing for life after death or Paradise or Hell or intelligent design.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

"Solipsism (/ˈsɒlɪpsɪzəm/ (About this sound listen); from Latin solus, meaning 'alone', and ipse, meaning 'self')[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist."

Such confidence in the most unlikely!

We may as well go out and say nothing matters ever, there is no knowledge and close the store.

How remarkably likely that you spend endless time to prove something without success and then it happens after some proper hint or some new angle. But it couldn't happen earlier, you had to suffer first because this is what the brain wanted to create. In fact the rather obvious that it takes effort for a process to acquire critical mass to get to the result is not at all seen as more likely.

Sure the one arguing now for solipsism is doing it against their own self not the others. Yes when your favorite team is losing it all done from your brain yes, when your have a bad result in any effort its all because the brain designed the torture, the same brain that has fun when all is easy every chance it gets. Yes its all an elaborate game of torture from being clueless on everything to gradually learning a lot and you build that all within using exactly what source of energy or what kind of information the original system had that could generate all this external information on its own. How much information our senses receive places a restriction on how big is that mega brain by the way but of course nobody cares for this. Oh i forgot all science is fake news. See why i said Trump above. It is worse than it!

What's with the cognitive dissonance of everything that goes against your physicalist worldview masque.

It's the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it. I believe that was Aristotle.

Hawking did a great TV episode on Decartes, simulation theory, and asked whether reality is mind dependent or not, even.



It's obviously different than an afterlife because we don't whether that exists. But we do know and can only that our own mind exists.

I thought of solipsism as a kid, before I knew there was name for it. Others did too, and then wrote the ideas down and developed them and we call it philosophy. That's what we do. Can you understand that.

Actually its going to be hella interesting when robots start telling us they are conscious. Think about that for a while. Hint: We'll never be able to prove it.

Sophia is now a citizen of Saudi Arabia.

Arguably is was some of the ideas of Decartes, Hume, Berkeley, Kant, that lead to those of Popper.

It's because i try to prove what i argue and i do care and philosophy without science is all kinds of endless pursuits without never ever proving anything useful. I do respect good philosophy. Demanding proof for the world being real is solid philosophy. Arguing it isnt with such conviction without any evidence is bs. If you take the position there is no evidence for anything, no truth exists, then close the store now.

Yes there is hope this discussion will be resolved but not with the attitude that the word "conclusion" above suggests. That is my problem. That it has become a lets have a career in philosophy business going on all ridiculous tangents of pseudo-intellectual-culture, not honest search for the truth.


It's moronic to argue it's all in your mind. There are endless probability clues against it. All probability theory is a convenient construct too? You start from clueless and you build the entire probability theory, (right?), all without the help of other brains and their past work or the rest of the universe producing collective intelligence and complexity? And why stop here and not learn all the other advanced probability that exists out there in endless books but not 300 years ago? What is stopping that brain now? Oh maybe the reality of the difficulty of it all not coming from inside alone! The entire time series of the "movie" coming all from inside, an inside originally very very limited as a child, is the problem against solipsism. The all kinds of probability theory and information generation issues that put constraints on how big that brain is. Maybe the brain is the entire universe after all and its also other brains too, a huge big brain called world. Well lets call that the universe then with multiple individual complexity systems and take the straightforward ideas about it that seems far more plausible and doesn't have the huge unreasonable path/evolution problems of the other approach.

Of course i also have thought the way i see the world is probably very special and unique to me but i do believe there is a lot of common with other brains too.

When robots say they are conscious i will believe them if i start interacting with them and getting the discussion to very interesting places. I will still hold a tiny chance its all a simulation but its so unlikely to be that faithful that one may as well create the real thing after all. Because some real thing gave us the simulation too anyway.

I try to prove my red or blue or yellow are the same as your red or blue or yellow respectively because i care. How originally worthless it is to argue against it with confidence! Just invite me to argue for my positions and join me even, dont take the stand you take the other side with confidence , it's bull crap to have such confidence. Sure lets go out and torture philosophers and they will argue no, its all their mind's doing.

There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."

Reply:
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."

Re: probability. Was maths invented or discovered?

I went out for a walk to buy some bits and bobs.
On my way home, I saw a young girl, perhaps 25 years of age. Stunningly good looking, with a dark skin complexion, hood up, sitting down against a public litter refuse, in the typical Irish pouring rain, holding a polystyrene cup begging for a change.

She looked at me as I looked at her. I shook my pockets but I had no coins and walked on.

She was foreign. She wasn't an addict. I pondered going back and asking her what forces are causing her to stoop so low, but not in those terms. But I instinctively knew, that anything other than giving her money was against her interest.