I'm still trying to wrap my head around what happens when you get drunk or have a lobotomy. Your brain in your conscious mind is affected but since all the thoughts in your conscious mind correspond to patterns in your brain then your conscious mind becomes affected?

No, he's done far more than take an agnostic position on reality (metaphysics). He's taken the position that physical reality DEPENDS on and is sustained by (his?) mental reality. Ie., physical reality can't exist without mind.

There's a big difference.

.... shouldn't someone toss in a "...claims about" disclaimer here?
Claims about physical reality depend on my mental reality.
Perhaps Madnak's serves that role ?

The bolded statement would violate that since it is a claim about physical reality, which is not a world he can discuss.

I havent read alot if this topic because i want to put in my input first before reading over thoroughly and discussing. It owuld be more interesting this way.

First about minds. 'Mind' is too genereal and specific conept to refer to. The mind is a part of something larger. Our 'inner world' is much borader and useful and is also defined as the 'soul'. Soul is a hard concept for many to to grasp as its meaning to the mainstream is asscociated and assumed to be religious fallacy because of its strong basis in all religion.

This whole topic is interesting. Madnak i think you have grasped something that few people can relate too or understand....

as you say one can only describe their own world. Each persons world is different. The outside world only exists to us because of our inner worlds. If there was no outside world our inner worlds would still remain and anynew oustide world could be created in its place. Like a dream. The ouside world is merely an image imprinted onto 'minds' or 'souls' or whatever. The outside world is completely controlled by our inner worlds if one realises it is master of everything its very enlightnening! Dreams are a perfect example of how the outside world exists as an image. Image has no substance. Think of a mirror and what is behind it.

Science CANNOT explain our inner worlds or souls or actually prove anything exists other than show data and its transendence into information. Only opinions can be given... solipism is an opinion as is religion as are materialist beliefs (i.e we are robotic animals whos output into the 3d world is computerised instinct meaning we never really have made a descicion in our lives we are merely a reaction to stimulii whos 'power loss' is the only undeniable reality).

It is very intersting to read over your thouhts madnak... absorbing how other worlds are percieved by people who recognise that the world is notihng but an energy inside fascinates me.

Altho solipism is comletely valid and could well be real Solipism is generally all too cynical for me. The point i can sort of relate too and adapt ot my own is that..

No there arent other minds or worlds... but that is only true in MY world. I tihnk one has to grasp that there is no general world (other than our own?) but an individual one for each person (maybe more than one?). However there are still other souls and other worlds and like mazes and tubes they can join meet move apart run side by side and flow through each other. This allows me to see and absorb other worlds as if looking through a scope... to a very limited extent of course as im no psychic... (everybody does this without knowing think of getting a read on someone lieng or bluffing in poker) and so TO ME proves existance of other minds and so faults solipsism....

Then, you realize that he's contradicting himself?

He has clearly stated that he's an idealist about reality. That means that he is committed to the belief that physical reality CANNOT exist without mind. If he also wants to say that he can't know anything about reality...then he can't hold both beliefs without pain of contradiction.

“If a person never contradicts himself, it must be that he says nothing.”
Miguel de Unamuno

I dont have the time (cant make the time) to add to the discussion at the moment, I take quite long to gather my thoughts on subjects such as this, I am following the conversation though.

You're trying to refute idealism using realist assumptions and definitions. That's begging the question.

My position is that if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there to hear it, then it does not make a sound.

If nobody can know reality, then reality does not exist. If I am everybody, and I can't know reality, then nobody knows reality. Thus, if I am everybody, and if I can't know reality, then reality does not exist.

Not only do the propositions not contradict, one actually implies the other.

Your world is the only world that exists.

"Exist" is a word. And if I can only speak of objects in my own world, then all my words must have as their referents objects in my world. Thus, "exist" is a reference to something within my reality by definition, and so nothing outside my reality can "exist," also by definition!

Therefore, my world is the only world that exists and this is tautologically true. When I try to imagine "other" worlds, I am constructing an internal illusion of "other." At all times I am only referencing objects within my own reality. I can have no conception of an "other reality," that can have no meaning to me, it's a category error. "Otherness" is not a property that can be legitimately applied to worlds or realities.

If it is within my reality, then it is not "other," and if it is not within my reality, then I cannot conceive of it (by definition, as my conceptions are part of my reality) and therefore cannot refer to it with words (based on my premise that my words can only refer to my conceptions) and can thus not apply the word "other" to it.

So I think considering "other worlds" is nonsensical. There are no other worlds, my world is the only world that exists.

Of course, I suspend this when speaking to realists, because realists expect me to use realist assumptions. I think realist assumptions are internally contradictory, so in a sense it's silly of me to work in that context. But within a realist context, as a logical construct independent of any epistemological or ontological considerations (this prevents it from being contradictory), I can say that other realities may exists, but that I merely don't know whether they exist. (Of course, I do know, they don't exist - but my definitions of "know" and "exist" are not intuitive for a naive realist, and will only hopelessly confuse such a person.)

This part I can do propositionally:

P1 - Claims about external reality cannot be made.
P2 - Claims about reality are either claims about external reality or claims about internal reality.
P3 - Physical reality is either external reality or internal reality
P3.1 - Claims about physical reality are claims about reality (tautological as physical reality has been defined as a class of reality)
P4.a - If physical reality is external reality, then claims about physical reality are claims about external reality.
P4.b - If physical reality is internal reality, then claims about physical reality are claims about internal reality.

C1 - Claims about reality are claims about internal reality (from P1 and P2)
C2 - Claims about physical reality are not claims about external reality (from C1 and P3.1)
C3 - Physical reality is not external reality (from C2 and P4.a)
C4 - Physical reality is internal reality (from C3 and P3)
C5 - Claims about physical reality are claims about internal reality (from C4 and P4.b)

There you have it, proof that physical reality is internal and that claims about physical reality are claims about internal reality.

I don't see how this follows in any kind of logically forced way. It looks more like an assertion of fact or knowledge. If you claim to know this, how did you come to know it? If it is knowledge you possess then you possess knowledge about reality; that knowledge being that "if nobody can know reality then reality does not exist".

I can see how the implication: "If nobody can know reality, then nobody can know whether reality exists or not", might be logically forced - although even that might be debatable. But certainly not the implcation you assert above.


PairTheBoard

Please explain where I've tried to refute anything. You don't understand the implications of what you said if you don't see that they contradict each other. You made a claim about reality in one, and in the other claim that you can make no such claims.

I've never said that I can make no claims about reality. I've said that I can make no claims about external reality, because classifying reality as external represents a category error.

This suggests that if I can make claims about physical reality, then physical reality is not external. See my previous post for a more formal presentation of this.

(Oh yeah, I define "refutation" as "pointing out contradictions," so you're trying to refute me right here.)

I explain this in the next post. Formally deriving it from first principles is, again, a time-consuming task that I hope I won't have to bother with. Suffice it to say that you may not agree with my basic premises anyhow, and that much of this is definitional (ie I don't think your definition of "exist" makes much sense, so that is not the definition that I like to use - here in my earlier conversation with tame_deuces is a definition I prefer.

But as I acknowledged to durkadurka, I have been changing definitions. I'm trying to use definitions of "exist" and "reality" that enhance clarity in a given post, but the constant switching around of definitions seems to have muddied the waters instead.

Let's put it this way - I don't think it's possible to discuss "reality," "existence," or "knowledge" based on conventional definitions of those terms. Thus, I am always "cheating" when I use those definitions. If I want to use those terms in a logically consistent way, then I prefer to use definitions that tautologically imply a reference to my mind.

Right, this is just the equivocation mentioned above. I'm trying to use realist definitions of terms in order to explain things and then switch to more "solipsistic" definitions when I feel I'm understood. This has resulted in chaos, so I should probably stop and try to be more careful.

"Then physical reality is not external" is a claim about external reality.

It implies that physical reality is not external (gee, that's kindof what the sentence says)...which is something you say you can't make claims about.

WOW. fascinating and insightful!...

Well i assure you that my world exists as well as your world exists wether or not you can comprehend that or not... it is undeniable to me as i am human and something tells me that everyone else are also human and its not a matrix like dream world im living in regardless of my ability to prove it i must have something to believe in.... We were all born with a soul in some form or other. Everyone knows the form of their own soul or inner world and i love discussing ones view of them.

You have defined the world to what it really is and thats amazing but your limiting yourself. Your inner world has infinite depth and anything can be real for the inside world is the only true reality... as you know. Also no offence but your so damn cynical and thats coming from someone who is regarded as so damn cynical. Anyhoo questions.


Yes agreed.. one can argue that maybe every < nano second you are constructing an internal illusion... How do you feel about time?

do you appreciate that all individuals have their own worlds which exist somewhere? regardless of your ability to imagine or conceptualise it and where that world may 'exist'?

(You really should it has opened doors for me and openieng your mind and striving to understand these illusions relative helps me to understand)

and linking these quotes...


Do you realise that when you're dreaming and it isn't lucid you are contstructing an internal illusion of ''other''?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_argument

You assure it? oh, ok. that's good enough for me. danka.

You think all these usernames connect to different people? What makes you think this post is me? Its you. Do you remember writing this? All the posts.... are you.

madnak do you ever have panic attacks dealing with you being the only thing that really exists, and how lonely that thought makes you feel? when i first read about solipsism i had a few of these late at night.

http://ieng9.ucsd.edu/~mfedder/zombies.html

Nope. When I had panic attacks, they were about death and hell.

LMAO. Hell is a scary thought isn't it? guess its the reason why i think about the world and what it is as much as i do. Christian hell is virtually impossible and stupid compared to other theories. The only hell i can think of would be a karma based one. For instance today i killed 5 wasps. I can imagine dieng and my hell being a life where the wasps get their own back along iwth everyone else karma based.

Back to solpipism i was thinking ealier...

How i view wasps is that they are objects. They have no souls or inner worlds they are just insects... I'm worried that they might have but how can i ever know? Thats like solipism isn't it? Leads me to believe that an extreme solipist would not mind killing another individual (object) as liek wasps are to me they don't live in their world... they live in my world.

Madnak dammit you need to realise tho (unless ur just arguing a case for the sake of it).... people have their own world just like you do. I know this because i have mine and as you think on kinda the same level i know you have one too. it exists somehwere just not in your plane. It has got to be socially unhealthy thinking that way.

That wouldn't be so bad. I'd still feel bad for the people who did horrible things. I mean, many think a torturer "deserves" to be tortured himself, but I would prefer that no new torture is added to the world. Plus I think any one of us could have done horrible things. The Milgram experiments showed that circumstances can cause any of us to do them, and studies on the brains of violent criminals indicate that simple brain damage could make any one of us into a sociopath. I don't think more pain as the answer makes a lot of sense.

Well, I don't think solipsism implies that others are p-zombies. I think that's a dangerous position to take, because it can lead to harming people. Of course, if they are only zombies then harming them isn't wrong - but like I said, I don't think solipsism implies they are. Regardless, harming others can have an impact on oneself, and you have to consider the possibility that you are wrong. I mean, if there's even a 10% chance that other people have feelings, then I have to treat them with care and concern, right?

Maybe. But maybe I am you, and you are me, and we are just different regions of the same mind, but we don't know it yet.

Maybe another big bang will happen when we come to complete realization that we are everything and we cant take it so we blow up. Kind of like in Being John Malcovich when he enters his own worm hole. That scene is so scary.

I don't know much about philosophy, but I do know quite a lot about mathematics. My comments about solipsism are as follows:

1) It seems obvious that to believe any other viewpoint than solipsism requires the acceptance of an untestable axiom, in addition to the axiom that our mind exists which most seem to accept.
2) That said, while the skeptical viewpoint of solipsism seems like the only one that one can rationally conclude as any other claims require the irrational acceptance of an additional axiom, there seems little point in worrying about solipsism. This is an entirely aesthetic point of view of course, but my perception of what is interesting requires me to at least accept the unprovable axiom that the world exists as an autonomous object.

To make an analogy with mathematics, I would say that at the very bottom of mathematics - any mathematics that is - one must start with axioms and some logical system/rules of inference. While there is no rational way of deducing any foundational axiom in mathematics, without the acceptance of some foundational axioms there simply IS no mathematics, no point to pursuing the endeavor at all. This doesn't mean one must have determined explicitly all axioms used in mathematics, indeed this endeavor has proved most trying in mathematical history, but accepting some "starting point" such as "integers" or whatever is a first step before even worrying about proving things. Perhaps I misunderstand solipsism, but after accepting this viewpoint what purpose does philosophy even have? Can one possibly build upon this viewpoint and consider philosophies built up from this viewpoint without the acceptance of some "world exists" axiom?

A lot depends on how do you define "mind" then, if you're saying everything falls under that heading.