.
To me there is nothing interesting to discuss.
Solipsism is not a very compelling philosophical topic.
It can only be hypothetically the case, and even then it is not logically founded.
I am amazed that people struggle with the "dilemma" at all.

Also I addressed your request with source material that illustrates how self recursion is infinitely regressive yet you continue to insist that I repeat myself.

If you had some point you wanted to arrive at, why not expedite our conversation and get to it?

It is not my burden to prove that self recursion regresses infinitely.
It is your burden to show how you escape self recursion.

I feel like you don't understand as a result of your belief that because you can semantically express your assertions without infinite regress that then there are no syntactical issues.
Again I have already provided sources that explain the issue, if you are interested in how that type of self reference regresses infinitely I advise you to review this link once more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry's_paradox#Language_capabilities_for_expressing_the_paradox

Curry's paradox can be formulated in any language supporting basic logic operations that also allows a self-recursive function to be constructed as an expression. The following list gives some mechanisms that support the construction of the paradox but the list is not exhaustive.

1. Self-reference; "this sentence".
2. Through naming of an expression which includes the name.
2. Apply naive set theory (Unrestricted comprehension).

The logic rules used in the construction of the proof are,

1. rule of assumption for conditional proof
2. contraction
3. modus ponens

The self-recursive function can then be used to define a non-terminating computation whose value is solution to an equation. In Curry's Paradox we use implication to construct a negation, that constructs an equation with no solution.

Also I have pointed out several times, it is not my burden to prove that self recursion regresses infinitely, this is a result demonstrated in formal reasoning.
I am not here to discuss those results I am here to point out how they apply to solipsism.

It is your burden to demonstrate how your assertions avoid self recursion.

This seems like small talk to me.
Why should I consider it important?

you might also like this

The US cannot be at war with a religion.
That would be a violation of the constitution, in particular freedom of religion.

We are not at war with Islam.

I think I agree.
Or at least I could not make sense of it otherwise.

To me it is something akin to...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_animal

I am saying that yes the problem of self recursion does apply if the notion that things do not have independent existence applies.

So if your sentences are trying to convey the idea that there is no independently existing things then yes.

Yeah again it is not about semantics where you say something in particular that is self recursive the infinite regress is of syntactical consequence.


It is a syntactic consequence of self recursion.
Some examples of proofs are Curry's paradox and the Kleene-Rosser paradox.

Curry's paradox can be formulated in any language supporting basic logic operations that also allows a self-recursive function to be constructed as an expression. The following list gives some mechanisms that support the construction of the paradox but the list is not exhaustive....

...The self-recursive function can then be used to define a non terminating computation whose value is solution to an equation. In Curry's Paradox we use implication to construct a negation, that constructs an equation with no solution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry's_paradox#Language_capabilities_for_expressing_the_paradox
^
Link to a plain language example

And again I think the burden of proof is on the person claiming there is no access to independently existent things that must demonstrate that this would not lead to self recursion.

If I say things such as "That tree is actually just my own mental phenomena," and "You are just my own mental phenomena." "Only my mental phenomena exist," would you say that that is sufficient for me to be a solipsist? If not, why not? — Terrapin Station

This seems to fall in line with the claim that we only have subjective access to information, so yes to me this would be subject to the issue I raise.
Again you seem to be claiming that we can not be sure of independently existent things.
This means our own existence would also be ill defined, again recall that if things do not exist independently then self and not-self are essentially logically equivalent.

And if it is, I'm asking you where, in this specific example, some infinite regress comes into play with my hypothetical views there.) — Terrapin Station

It is great that you realize that solipsism is only a hypothetical case.

The problem exactly would come from self reference or self defining.
Recall that if there is only subjective access then this means that any definition or reference will be restricted to that subjective thing.
So it is the claim that distinct and independently existing things do not exist or can not be reference which creates the problem of self recursion.

Lets look at what we mean by three important terms.
1. Recursion -

A recursive process is one in which objects are defined in terms of other objects of the same type. Using some sort of recurrence relation, the entire class of objects can then be built up from a few initial values and a small number of rules.

Note that when defining objects with recursion objects are treated as though they exist independently from each other, even if they are considered the same object each one must exist independently.
So you can claim that solipsism survives my criticism by appealing to the notion that perceptions have independent and distinct existence.
Perception of self exists independently of perception of tree.
That is a bit of semantic back pedaling but sure it check's out, as long as you don't then claim that the perception of tree cannot exist without the perception of the self.
That would mean you are implying that these things do not in fact exist independently and that is the sort of claim I debunk.

2. Self recursion -

Self-recursion is a recursion that is defined in terms of itself, resulting in an ill-defined infinite regress.

This will apply in the case where objects do not have any independent existence.
That is to say the only way to define or reference will be self recursive.
The only way to avoid self recursion is things exist independently of each other.
That is to say as long as a tree is a distinct and separate existence apart from the self and one does not depended upon the other.
So if solipsism is the claim that things do not exist independently of yourself, then I think it should be the person making this claim that should demonstrate how self recursion does not apply.

But you keep implying the burden of proof is on me to show that self recursion is infinitely regressive.
To my mind it should be obvious why self recursion applies to solipsism for the reasons I have pointed out.

3. Definition -

A definition assigns properties to some sort of mathematical object.

So this will mean to formally/logically apply properties.
If we define or categorize something then we must avoid self recursion, and we can not avoid self recursion if there are no independently existent things.

I'm not asking you with respect to things you'd need me to say in order for there to be an infinite regress. (And regarding that, by the way, I might very well say, for example, that there is no such thing as perception in reality; I could say that perception is a non-solpsistic concept, a fictional interpretation of my solipsistic mental phenomena. So it's not the case that everything is "subjective perception" because a fortiori it's not the case that anything is perception. But this is an aside, please address the other part instead.) — Terrapin Station

Again this is not a semantic issue that I raise it is syntactical one.
If there are no independently existent objects then self recursion applies, and that regress infinitely without any clear definitions of anything.

Re my request, I'm also asking for a specific example of what you think I'd need to say (that is, the sort of thing I'd need to say) that would be an infinite regress given "That tree is actually just my own mental phenomena" etc. In other words, give me a quote, not an abstract description as you did above. I want to examine how a hypothetical conversation would go, as if we were writing a Socratic dialogue. — Terrapin Station

The infinite regress, specifically, would apply if there were in fact no independently existing objects.

So it is if you say "Things have no objective existence in reality, there is only a subjective existence."
Then we can debunk this, because if it were in fact true there would be the problem of self recursion and the infinite regress it entails.

Again I do not agree with you that I have the burden of proof here and again I think the person claiming "There is no objectively existent things, only subjectively existent things." is the one that must show how self recursion does not then apply.

So your's is a common point of confusion and I can relate because I did not understand myself not all that long ago, and I made the same mistaken assumption as yourself.
Here is a good break down of godel incompleteness that might help with your confusion.

There is the classic idea of a contradiction like the liar paradox.
"This statement is false."
And you can play with the axioms of a formal system so that you can avoid the possibility of constructing these type of contradictions within that system.
But godel also illustrates a different kind of statement that is subtly different in formal terms.
It looks more like.
"This statement is unprovable."

What godel showed, as a consequence of incompleteness, is that you can construct an unprovable type of statement in any formal language.
There are plenty of examples of unprovable statements that can be used as axioms.

... A statement is independent of ZFC (sometimes phrased "undecidable in ZFC") if it can neither be proven nor disproven from the axioms of ZFC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statements_independent_of_ZFC
Undecidability as a computer science term is an extension of incompleteness applied to the particular synatx (formal language) of computation.

I disagree with you that undecidability and/or incompleteness have nothing to do with inconceivability/incomprehensibility.
In my opinion inconceivability is simply an informal way of referring to this formal concept.

No to say something is undecidable is to say there is no axiomatic system that can be used to resolve the question in a finite amount of steps.

If something is undecidable in one system it will also be undecidable in any other system.

That is to say you can not obtain true or false about that problem.

Oh I don't know of any proofs that universe is incomprehensible.

Maybe this?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.04573

It is a proof that a problem in physics has no logical solution.

I said this would be true only if you exercise the ability to be powerless.

If you are without power, then by definition, you cannot also have all the powers.

As long as both are not true at the same time, there is no contradiction.

That is true, but it could be that the universe is more strange than we are even able to comprehend.

I don't know if an omnipotent being is possible or not.

I don't care.

My point is that having all the powers is not the same as using all the powers.

Just because you can do something does not mean that something will get done.

For example it is not a contradiction to say I have the power to commit suicide, even though I have not killed myself.

I suppose, but your question made me think of this quote.

I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.

-J. B. S. Haldane

I think the universe is a good example.

We don't have a theory of everything so in a sense the existence of the universe is yet inconceivable to us, but the universe exists despite that fact.

Having the power to make yourself powerless is not the logical equivalent of exercising the power to become powerless.

You can have the power to make yourself powerless without using that power and you are not powerless until you use that power, at which point you would no longer be all powerful.

The order of operations here avoids any contradiction, that and that fact that having the ability to do something is not the logical equivalent of actually doing that thing.

My mistake
I thought you were suggesting that in the hard sciences it was an even split among left leaning and right leaning views.

That would be news to me, because even in the hard sciences left leaning tend to significantly out number right leaners.

Your article did not have a link to any actual study that I could find, but I will take your word for it that there have been studies that show that in humanities majors there is an even greater disparity than in the hard sciences.

That is why I asked for your source.

I did but got different results than you.

When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP.

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

I would like to see your source showing that those educated in hard science degrees are as likely to be conservative as liberal.

To my understanding the more educated a person is the more likely they are to be liberal.

You will recall I provided a link to the definition of recursion.and self recursion.

The issue arises with the claim that there exist no independent and distinct objects.
Or the claim that everything is subjective perception.

If everything is just subjective perception, and that subjective perception has no access to any existence independent of itself, then this will be an example in which self recursion applies.
To avoid infinite regress necessitates that there exist things which exist independently of subjective perception, the self, the mind, or what have you.
If all that exists is dependent upon subjective perception then self recursion applies.

Basically you must concede the point that there are things which exist independent of subjective perception to avoid infinite regress.
What semantic acrobatics you perform to salvage solipsism at that point, I do not care.

My main point is that there necessarily exist distinct and independent objects.

Of course in reality there is no practical example of self recursion from solipsism because in reality solipsism is not the case, so I am sorry if this post does not address that.

Under metaphysical solipsism ("the world and other minds do not have objective "existence"."), everything that exists is presumed to be a part of one's own mind, but not equivalent to one's own mind (that's kinda the whole ontological point of solipsism). The "Mind" ("self"(2)) encompasses everything that exists, including "self"(1). Everything that exists, as a whole, is "the mind". The "self"(1) is a part of this whole, and the stimuli the self(1) experiences (like trees and animals) is also a part of the greater "mind" (the whole), but it (a tree) is neither equivalent to self(1) or self(2). It is a thing generated by self(2) and perceived by self(1) (under metaphysical solipsism). — VagabondSpectre

This means then that my criticism applies.

If this were actually true that there were no independently existent things apart from self then the problem of infinite regress from vicious self recursion cannot be avoided.

But because things do exist independently of the mind, perceptions, subjective experience, self, or what ever terms you want to use, we are not subject to the problem of infinite regress in reality.

We can be logically certain that metaphysical solipsism is not true.

Anybody play no mans sky?

If so does it live up to the hype mill?

I was playing an indie game called sub rosa.
When the server is populated it is actually quite an addictive game, but the community seems to have died off, maybe when it is updated next year people will return.

Solipsism is the notion that you only have access to your own existence.
If this true then my criticisms apply.

What you are describing is the notion that you can simply redefine objects (like trees for example) as being a part of self.
That redefining would not be possible if the only access to existence you had was your own existence.
If things do not exist independently of your own existence, the subjective experience, the mind, or what ever terms you want to use, then the ill defined infinite regress issue I pointed out will arise.

Claiming that solipsism avoids this issue by suggesting that there is access to independently existing objects is not a typical definition of the term solipsism and I am not arguing that point because I agree that, necessarily, we must have access to an existence that is independent for our own existence.
Of course that is not how solipsism is typically defined.

If you are claiming that all information we access is subjective, that we never access any information independent of that subjectivity, then you have not avoided the issue I raised.
Otherwise, if you are not claiming this, then I see no reason to debate because I agree that the above notion cannot be the case.

Also I am not talking about incompleteness I am talking about logical steps.
There would be infinitely many if solipsism was actually the case and we would never arrive at any conclusions, definitions, or any logical sense at all.
We would be stuck in an infinite loop.

If it is true that we can arrive at conclusions or definitions of things (including self) in a finite amount of steps, then this is mutually exclusive of solipsism.

The simplest way I can put it is like this.
Self is not logically equivalent to non-self.
If solipsism were true then the above would be false and it would not be possible to make conclusions or form definitions of self or non-self.
Because we know in reality that the self is not logically equivalent to non-self, we can draw conclusions and form definitions about either of these two distinct, and independent things.

For the life of me I don't understand why that is so difficult to grasp.

The self cannot be logically equivalent in reality to the non-self without infinite regress of self recursion.

That is true.
I had not thought of self imposed filter bubbles.

It is not clear exactly what are all the points of data that are collected and used to update these algorithms, partly because companies are constantly refining the algorithms and mostly because it is protected by IP laws.
But things like what pages you visit, how long you stay on a page, what things you click on that page.
Where you are accessing the page from, what type of computer you are using, what type of browser, and of course any purchases you make are standard points that generate records used to filter content to you.

It is especially difficult to avoid google because even if you use a different search engine many web sites still have googles analytics engine integrated into their site.

You're equivocating between two different definitions of "self". The first is the conscious experience we're having right now; the traditional "self"(1). This is the context in which someone says "look at that orange tree". The second definition, which comes from solipsism, is "the source of everything that exists"(2.1) or "the only real mind"(2.2). So when a solipsist encounters a tree they could think/say: "look at that tree which does not exist in any reality external to some conscious or unconscious part of my mind" . — VagabondSpectre

No.
I am saying that if solipsism was true then the only thing it would be possible to reference would be the self which is self recursive and leads to an ill defined infinite regress.
I don't care what definition of self you use, if there exists only one object and that object includes a reference to something, it will be a referencing only of itself.
That simply cannot be avoided.

My second point is that solipsism is and always has been presented as a possible explanation for phenomenon, not a rejection of the existence of phenomenon. Saying that if solipsism were true there would be no trees blatantly misrepresents the inherent thrust of solipsism. The single object universe you describe as "self-referential" isn't solipsism because it says nothing about the nature of the phenomenon we perceive as solipsism does; it depends on their non-existence to be an apt objection. — VagabondSpectre

I pointed out why that is simply not true.
If solipsism were a reality we would be certain of nothing, not the self or anything else.
If solipsism were true it would be incapable of explaining anything.
Also you want to cling to an inconsistency in your position where by you imply that we can only be certain of self.
If we can be certain of the existence of self, conscious experience, subjective perception, or what ever you decide to call it, then we can be sure there exists something independent from that.
If there exists nothing independent of what ever you decide to call it, then we could not be certain of anything and any attempt to define or reference anything would lead to infinite regress, meaning there are an infinite amount of steps that must be taken to arrive at a conclusion.

Because we reach conclusions all the time within a finite amount of steps and without any issue this means we can be logically certain that solipsism is not really what is going on ontologically or epistemologically.

That just leaves semantics.
You want to argue semantics go for it.
Perhaps solipsism does not literally mean that all we can access is self generated subjective information.

My mind all the way back is no more problematic than turtles all the way down... — VagabondSpectre

lol

So saying turtles all the way down never gets you to the bottom, just like saying only the self exists would never allow you to reach a conclusion about the existence of self or anything else.

It is only a problem if you take the assertion of solipsism seriously from in logically formal way.
It very obviously is not true that it is my mind all the way back because if that were true I would be stuck in an infinite loop.
I am not, so I can conclude solipsism is not true.

To me you seem to be confusing recursion with self recursion.

You say a solipsist can reference a tree then redefine that tree as being a part of self.
So the tree would in essence be an object like self, but the critical difference would be it would actually exist independent of the self.

If solipsism were actually true and a reality that would not be possible.
There would be no other objects, there would just be one object referencing itself, which leads to infinite regress.

I pointed out the definitions of recursion and self recursion.

If solipsism was true it would not be possible in reality to avoid self recursion when referencing.

Well, like I said you are entitled to your opinion.

But the fact is if the only thing that exists is self, then the only thing that can be referenced is self.

That is self recursion and it leads to an ill defined infinite regress in which you never define anything.
Including self or anything else.

If you can define things, including self, then this necessarily means solipsism is not a reality.

The definition of recursion.

A recursive process is one in which objects are defined in terms of other objects of the same type. Using some sort of recurrence relation, the entire class of objects can then be built up from a few initial values and a small number of rules. The Fibonacci numbers are most commonly defined recursively. Care, however, must be taken to avoid self-recursion, in which an object is defined in terms of itself, leading to an infinite nesting.

The definition self recursion

Self-recursion is a recursion that is defined in terms of itself, resulting in an ill-defined infinite regress.

.

Perhaps you believe that if the only thing that exists is self (solipsism) you can avoid self recursion when defining objects.
I don't see how, and that notion makes no sense to me, but you are entitled to your opinion.
I am sorry you don't understand, it is pretty simple.

If solipsism was true only one object would exist, and it would only be able to reference itself when defining anything.
That would be self recursion and leads to infinite regress.

If other objects exist (something other than just self), even objects of the same type, you can use recursion to avoid infinite regress.

I see your point.
Hypothetically, if these young men sued the school, they might win that lawsuit.

But I still disagree that would be the most likely outcome.

If solipsism was true then the only thing that existed would be you.
And the only thing you could reference would be yourself.
It would necessarily involve a problem of infinite regress from self reference.

I disagree still.
I was not attempting to suggest that traditional media was bias free.
I was pointing out that modern media is decidedly more bias compare to traditional media and that this is by design not as a result of human error.
Modern filtering algorithms are deliberately biased, ideally they are biased in exactly the same way you are, so as to provide you with content that appeals to your own personal tastes.
This simply was not true of traditional media, their target audience were not given individuals, it was a mass audience.


Traditional news media was designed for public consumption.
This means to some extent it had to appeal to a wider audience.
The fact that content was targeting a mass audience meant that it had to be less bias compared to modern media.

This is no longer true in the information age.
The information you are exposed to, to an ever increasing degree, is being custom tailored for your personal tastes.

Another issue is fact checking.
When media outlets compete for a large audience they police themselves to insure that the facts are right.
Online companies do not fact check each others content filters, there is decidedly less self oversight than we see with traditional media.


To me it is a legitimate issue that should be brought to the attention of public.
The public deserves to know that if they get their news from strictly online sources, that news is being curated to suit their tastes based on their surfing habits.

I can make no sense of this.

You ask me to suppose that the point of existence is to avoid suffering, then inform me that the only way to realize that point is to cease to exist?

Does not add up in my book.

Realism is a rejection of the claim that we are confined exclusively to self reference.

Exclusive self reference leads to an ill defined infinite regress.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Self-Recursion.html
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-reference/

If we can reach any logical conclusion then this means that in reality we are not restricted exclusively to self reference.

If we can reach any logical conclusions than necessarily there is something which exists independently of our own minds which allows us to avoid the infinite regress of exclusive self reference..

If it were a reality that we were limited exclusively to self reference then there would be no way to prove that was true in reality and in fact there would be no way to prove anything because we would be trapped in an infinite loop of self regress inherent of exclusive self reference.

It is not really a matter of showing consciousness is decidable it is about a semantic choice.

What do we mean by the term consciousness?

We use the term consciousness in way that seems to assumes that consciousness is a decidable thing.

So if we choose to define consciousness as a thing which is decidable then all that indicates would be that the algorithm that produces consciousness will entail the ability to compute that it is conscious.
Deciding that you are conscious would then be a necessary condition of consciousness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency

The philosophical implication would be that there is no real hard problem of consciousness in the sense that consciousness is undecidable.
As well, If consciousness is defined as a thing which is decidable then the problem of other minds is not an undecidable problem either.

The alternative to this is that we assume consciousness is not decidable in which case we cannot be sure if we are conscious or not, nor could we be sure that others are conscious.

Also I am not sure it is possible to demonstrate that consciousness is undecidable?
That is to say if consciousness is necessarily undecidable....
how would you show that?