"In solipsism, only the mind exists. It is important to note that the mind refers not to the brain, or one's ego perception, but the totality of all that you perceive, this includes all of the senses. What are the people around me other than images, sounds, and feelings?"

.

That's my case. I think that because something is logical that it must be true. I'm still getting used to the whole "valid but not true" thing.

I'm off to work for now, but wanted to make the comment: So too will some argue that Earth is flat irrespective of what you and I say. Why take what they say so seriously?

Especially when it comes to experience and intention ... you know your own better than anyone else, right? — javra

I mean yes...but what if my interpretation is wrong like the quotes say? According to some they say solipsism supports their experience. I can't say I agree though. But the point they make about when you tear down everything else all you have left is your own isolated perception. Some say this is Idealism and empiricism taken to their logical extreme.

No, the definition of self that you provided is enough and somewhat one the lines of what I think a self is as all.

I know there is the argument of P-Zombies, but if I never heard of the term it would not be my first reaction to a new world. Neither would that the world is my creation.

But as to intending both X and not X:

"When you tear down the labels and rationalizations behind everything you'll find there is no longer any point of reference, and no coherency. You are left with nothing but the sensation of your own isolated perception, with no clear source or meaning in sight."

"It seems to me that absolute knowledge is the totality of the individual's current knowledge at any given moment. Any knowledge that has not yet been acquired is nonexistent until observed. Therefore, the equivocation of metaphysical and epistemological solipsism is still consistent with my own perceptual experience."

It's not really what I think about it but what others say about it. I don't want to believe it but it's a select others that say I am mistaken in dismissing it as false or wrong. We can go on about what I think about it, but that does not matter. What matters is the counter arguments I hear against me, mostly that it can't be refuted, is logically perfect, or that I have no evidence to believe my position, or that solipsism is the default.

I heard it said a lot that it is logically consistent and can't be refuted. I mean all I can be aware of is my own conscious experience and it's possible that there is nothing else.

https://askaphilosopher.org/2012/08/22/can-there-be-certainty-outside-my-currently-observed-world/

Solipsism being true would not be fun. It would lead to despair and tragedy as one would become keenly aware that they are "It".

I'm not entirely sure how that logic checks out, is there a way to expand on that?

Again butchering QM to make a point. The person in the article misunderstands observation as it applies to QM thinking that it means consciousness when it doesn't.

Also that article is useless, it's essentially a long winded way of saying "I don't know". Neuroscience is already getting to the point of solving consciousness, QM has no role in this.

Also for an article that has solipsism in the title it appears nowhere in the actual article.

It's not really a prejudice when it's a known "fact" that metaphysics is a useless branch of philosophy.

Introducing that into QM is likely to cause more problems and confusion in an already dense field of study.

I just don't see doubting as a valid form of argument because the same thing can be done right back to you to the point that no one really gets anywhere. Once you start doubting the senses then you don't really get to claim science for support for whatever claim you have.

Trauma is actually rather complex but it has nothing to do with a subconscious. It's literally wiring in the brain. Recent developments in neuroscience show that much of what was "the mind" is just the brain. The tricky part is that it's a little more than just going in there and nip and tuck.

"The mind" so far has no evidence for existing as neuroscience gets more advanced. What was termed the mind is just the brain: personality, behavior, emotions, everything. As for Freud psychology would have been better off without him. Talk therapy was his only good contribution but that was not news.

Apparently, from previous comments, you doubt that even You have a Mind! But, you seem to act as-if you are certain of your own mental/brain powers -- whatever you call them. Do you believe that other people have similar faculties? On what empirical basis? Do you know anything for sure, outside the direct experience of your own mind/brain/senses? On what empirical basis? Have you directly experienced all the "facts" of Science, or do you accept the testimony of those who have personal (solipsistic) experience with the pertinent experiments? — Gnomon

I don't know what you think pulling dictionary definitions prove or support in your arguments as nothing you have so far shows that quantum physics is on par with metaphysics. The two are not related no matter how much you want them to be.

To your first question, no I don't. I don't even know what a mind actually is yet the term is used often, I don't act though as if I am certain of anything I just act. The rest of your questions are all meaningless. The point of science is that one can test the claims being put forth. Considering science has brought planes, miracle drugs, tvs and other such gadgets I see no reason to doubt their testimony. I could but why? Unlike religion they actually deliver. I have experienced plenty of the facts of science, considering I have a major in the field.

If you are asking on what empirical basis, it's that I see it and feel it, etc. But one cannot know anything for sure and science doesn't claim to have certainty, hence it has evidence and not proof. I mean science acknowledges it's limits, other schools don't. I mean I can't be certain of my direct experience either, I have no choice but to take it as a given. I can't be sure of my mind or brain either. If you want to play the game of skepticism then we can play but neither of us is going to win out.

I'm not sure where you are going with your line of reasoning, but spouting dictionary terms seems to reflect your inability to put a good argument together. If you are trying to cast doubt on senses and empiricism then you don't have any grounds for trying to tie quantum physics with metaphysics.

Freud was a quack because his who body of work tried to pass itself for science when he had no evidence that any of it was a thing. He could not see past the ideas of his time either which greatly impacted his views.

I didn't need evidence to attack Freud but you refused to accept the obvious.

Regarding biases I am inclined to think that rather that certain biases rather than him creating them he had certain views because he was affected by the prejudices of a former time. What I believe he did was about bringing sexuality into an open forum. The ideas he expressed provided a forum for discussion and this in itself has been a starting point for positive developments to further the awareness of women's rights and gay rights. — Jack Cummins

Not at all. He is one of the people responsible for perpetuation negative stereotypes of women and essentially gave people "scientific" grounds to discriminate against homosexuality. He didn't bring sexuality into an open forum, he pretty much validated the male-centered view of the world and still cast the women as "other". If he never existed women and gays likely would not have had the setbacks they would have because people would not be pointing to him as "science" behind their views.

I don't think you grasp how worthless the mans ideas were and yet he was able to influence people for years afterwards before they got smart as saw him as a quack. You are attributing positives to the man that don't exist. Nearly all of psychology today recognizes how Freud damaged the field pretty badly and almost led to people not taking psychology seriously.

My questioning about discrediting the subconscious or unconscious is from a theoretical stance though. I am wondering is if we see the unconscious as a mere background process, I am left wondering if that would mean that sleep(and dreams) would be regarded as unnecessary. What would happen if we were awake constantly? I have experienced many sleepless nights and have felt absolutely terrible. I am not convinced that sleep is a mere rest for the body and do believe that dreaming is essential.I would suggest that it allows for some kind of synthesis of conscious experience. — Jack Cummins

Dreaming is not essential. Sure we can't really know much about it because it's very hard to test, but plenty of people have dreamless sleep and feel fine. Some don't dream at all. It's not essential. Your first conclusion does not follow. The subconscious being background noise does not mean sleep or dreams are unnecessary. IF you were awake constantly then you would suffer terribly as your brain cannot operate at that level for extended periods of time. Sleep is just rest for the body, that includes the brain. As for synthesis of conscious experience that is literally all we do. Our brains construct reality based on our sensations so what you get is a simulation not the actual thing.

But you are still working though, we are talking about flat out just not working at all. That is parasitic, it seems you misunderstood me.

We literally have neurological evidence that the unconscious is really just background brain processes that we aren't aware of. Freud however failed to provide any evidence that the subconscious is a repository of any sort.

Any fool can see his theories are rooted in the biases of his time.

In the case of the wolf man Freud pretty much fabricated the cause of the poor guy and claimed that he was cured when the man himself says that such a memory would be impossible.

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/06/science/as-a-therapist-freud-fell-short-scholars-find.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

His entire practice has 0 evidence to support it. Literally anyone can see it and it's why his name no longer holds sway in psychology, some even say he set the whole thing back by 50 years.

His theories about women were just downright horrifying:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/friedan.htm

He even thought homosexuality was stunted repression of sexuality and that it contributed to several mental illnesses. He's responsible for several anti-gay myths.

I could go on but there is literally scores of evidence as to why the man was a quack.

I mean he even tried to peddle cocaine as a psychiatric cure-all: http://marsdentherapy.blogspot.com/2011/08/book-review-freud-and-cocaine-freudian.html

There is literally thousands of reasons to forget about the man.

I know enough about philosophy to know that you are essentially trying to argue for solipsism.

The problem I have with idealism is how can the world be made of ideas when we haven't even learned them yet?

I also find that most idealists posit a "mind at large" that holds perceptions, for which I can't honestly see anyone actually believing it.

Why exactly would society support those who don't wish to work. It's different if they are unable to for some reason or another. But you are essentially asking society to validate parasitic lifestyles.

I have been confident individuals and cultures have a consciousness and a subconsciousness. What is the explanation of Freud being wrong about that? — Athena

They believe that but recent evidence shows there to be no such subconscious.

The revelation here is that working at a job that you enjoy is a luxury because several others have to work other jobs they don't exactly enjoy just to make that possible.

I suppose there is a point in that. Everyone lies at some point in their lives so it's not reasonable to suggest that they would turn EVIL later. Some people admit when they lie too and others do it for the right reasons.

You realize that the only way such a life is possible is because the majority doesn't follow that way of living?

I also forgot to mention that the guy you cited is essentially arguing for solipsism so.....good job.

Your posts are like someone who doesn't understand Quantum physics trying to explain what it is.

Not to mention the article you linked is full of errors in reasoning, not to mention that the author of the article does not have a degree in physics. He tries to peddle idealism as truth when it was debunked long ago and tries to use "mind" as a thing that exists when neuroscience has debunked it. Also mindless does not mean zombie.

Seriously, not sure how Scientific American greenlit that article.

No need since his entire body of work isn't rooted in evidence. It has been called into question several times and even some of the experiments he performed were found to lack serious control methods and even influenced outcomes. A number of his case studies have been found to be fabricated, distorted, or just outright fraud. His "repressed memories" were just confabulation like in the case of "the Wolf Man" where he essentially inserted what he thought happened to solve the case.

The man's entire body of work has no evidence to back it and some of the good stuff he came up with was actually practiced by others before and during his time. Not to mention the HEAVY bias evident in his world (it was a reflection of his time, not about human nature in general).

One doesn't need philosophy to see him for the quack he is.

I find Stoicism has too many contradictions to be a philosophy on how to live well.

As for Freud, the guy was a quack. I honestly wonder how he had such an influence for so long when much of his work has been discredited along the way. Even his notion of the subconscious was later found to be incorrect.

So we don't need a belief in natural rights, or inherent rights, to act morally and virtuously. — Ciceronianus the White

You kind of do, otherwise morality becomes "whatever I say is moral", something the stoics never fully grasped.

I don't see it as an ethical issue at all since it doesn't really affect you unless you're watching them do it. Any concerns about it are likely a holdover from the times when humans were stupid and thought actions that didn't harm anyone else were immoral.

Could it be because Physics, after 5 centuries, still has not found the key relationship between Mind & Matter, or between Quantitative Substance & Qualitative Attributes, or between the Potentiality of Invisible fields & the Actuality of tangible objects? Could it be because Physics has atomized the world down to sub-atomic "particles" that are described as a "virtual" essence or simulation? Maybe it's because Physics has found that the foundation of the world is Mathematical instead of Material? Or that Gravity is no longer a physical Force, but a metaphysical mathematical "curvature" of empty space? If Quantum Physics, only statistically real, is not downright "spooky", as Einstein called it, it is literally Meta-Physical : beyond the scope of classical Physics. Yet, it remains within the scope of modern Philosophy. :nerd: — Gnomon

Mind does not exist, neuroscience killed dualism there. Qualia from what I have heard is a meaningless attribute that caries no real worth.

Physics has not found that the foundation of the world is mathematical, it's still material just not in the way we thought it was. But it literally does not impact our day to day, and metaphysics even less so. Gravity is still a physical force. It's not Meta-Physical, it's not beyond the scope of classical physics, that's like calling biology that. It is a branch than deals with phenomenon at the quantum level of particles. Classical physics still works at our level but not quantum physics.

I know you WANT metaphysics to be useful but it's not. Quantum physics is not even in the same league as metaphysics so it's fallacious to think there can be an association between the two.

The reason we are still debating the same metaphysics as in the beginning is because there is no solution to metaphysical questions. It just boils down to what people want to believe and that's it. None of your definitions change any of that.

Waves, particles, fields - how they can be consolidated in the mind, now there's a challenge for metaphysics. — jgill

This is an error in the interpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation. Consciousness does not play a role in QM. The term "observation" just means any sort of interaction with the system, not a conscious agent.

Neither one. I just question the distinction you make between forms of skepticism.

I’d like to push back somewhat on the idea that philosophy isn’t important, or doesn’t have much value. To me, the value doesn’t lie in something tangible or quantifiable, but in how you experience life. I feel that people interested in philosophy naturally find the world to be more mysterious and interesting than others, and I think doing philosophy feels purposeful, and I say that as essentially a nihilist. But there’s something that feels meaningful about discovering answers (or discovering that there are no answers) to big questions that most people never consider. So I wouldn’t say it isn’t without merit. It probably won’t help you pay the bills or put food on your table, but it may provide meaning. I also think it adds depth to your experience. I don’t know how many TV shows, or books, or games, or movies that I’ve found to be more sublime because I was aware of the implicit philosophical themes throughout them. Themes I wouldn’t have been aware of or able to appreciate without some knowledge of philosophy. — Pinprick

I vehemently disagree. Life tends to become a net negative when you begin to question everything around you. As was mentioned in the past philosophy does not answer questions it asks them. So far in my foray into it there were no answers to the questions posited. A lot of views for sure, but no real answer. It also has the habit of annihilating meaning, not providing it. Philosophy is the organon of extinction as one person put it. The same when it comes to movies. Once you start digging into their themes and the like the magic is gone.

It's ironic in a sense, but life is more meaningful and magical if you don't ask questions.

If we started allowing metaphysics into quantum physics we will get the same thing that metaphysics has yielded for the past thousand years, nothing.

IMO Metaphysics is the most useless branch of philosophy.

It's not jumping from A to Z it's being open to the possibility. But even then you example of the friend doesn't apply to that of reality when it's becoming clear each day that our perception of it does not match the way it actually is. Color is a huge example as it does not exist outside our heads.

I'm just going where the evidence leads. I mean color doesn't exist in the world outside our minds after all. Sounds like more evidence for the radical skepticism and not so much the measured one. You still haven't addressed my point about the arbitrary line you draw between the two.

If you wanted to be reasonable in your skepticism you would have to admit that you don't know if other people are conscious, it's just a hope that you aren't alone. I mean you can only verify your own experience right? Sounds like your version of reasonable skepticism is wishful thinking.

”

I’ve been asking myself that question from when i was a kid – I can see how i have always WANTED to BELIEVE that other people think and feel and experience stuff inside their head/themselves, just like me — yet, i could never get over the FACT that when i am looking at them with my eyes, i see none of that going on – i am just seeing a picture. Yet the picture looked so much like my picture that I didn’t want to accept that maybe what i think about what other people think and feel and experience ‘within themselves’ isn’t actually real and really only exist in my own head/’consciousness’ and i truly am ‘alone’ in my ‘consciousness’/’inner experiences’ as ‘thoughts, feelings and emotions’.

Because, that would then imply that i am ALONE here, ALONE in existence, AS existence – and even though common sense deduction of the FACTS would indicate that to be reality, i see how i started to, throughout my life, deliberately convince myself that what exist inside of myself as my ‘mind’, exist within others as well through ‘interpretative perception’, even though i could not and cannot possibly see this for real – as i cannot actually open up the head of another human and see the thoughts and feelings – just so that i would not feel so alone or have to realize that i am alone.

Because, what would it imply to be/exist ALONE here? It would imply that i am responsible for all that exist here as this world/reality that i am seeing with my eyes, as it all IS me, just me, alone, here. It would imply that i am ‘God’ and all that exist here is my creation — it would also imply that i would have to face the fact that i have never been aware of being ‘God’ and of when, how or why I created this existence in the first place — which scared the living shit out of me. So, i took the road of self-deception and pretended that i am ‘not alone’ because ‘other people feel what i feel, they think what i think – and i am my thoughts and feelings, so that means that i am not alone responsible for what is here’. Though what i have had to come to terms with is the deliberate self-deception in convincing myself that i am this ‘system’ of ‘thought, feeling and emotion’, while deeeep down within myself I kind of know that that is not really who i am – i simply brainwashed myself deliberately into losing myself within that system to just not have to face the FACT that i am ALONE here.

This is the sad reality of it because it is the FACTS – as i can see that ‘consciousness’ as what i believe about what ‘other people’ think, believe, feel and experience, still only exist within MY MIND — so, it’s a matter of making that decision: will i stop fooling myself and face the FACTS that ‘consciousness’ is my own self-made illusion or will i continue hiding within myself to not face the ‘God’ that is me and the enormous responsibility that comes with it?”

Again no. Also I wouldn't argue that four is a metaphysical object, it's a concept. You are trying to attribute to metaphysics what doesn't belong. What you are showing is an atom which is a "ball" but at the base level everything is made of fields. It's not math dude.

Also don't cite equations if you don't understand the math behind it.

Again no. Fields are not mathematical abstract definitions, they can essentially be called energy for lack of a better term. The models can be studied physically. All these fields are in fact made up of particles themselves.

Again you aren't a physicist so your citations don't matter on the subject. I've spoken to those who do know this but they could only give the short answers to it without teaching me.

Not exactly. The thing about quantum physics is that there are atoms and they are "solid" for all intents and purposes. I don't know the specific answer but they told me that no is does not say that nothing exists, it just means reality isn't what we thought. But quantum mechanics did not unseat materialism.

But others accept the fact that they consist of nothing more than abstract virtual mathematical information. — Gnomon

This is still debated but the answer seems to be no, they are made of fields. They are NOT studied in metaphysics and are still in the realm of material physics. It's also worth noting that Quantum physics breaks down at particles above a certain size. Ergo it doesn't explain anything about our day to day lives and the principles don't apply there. That still doesn't stop idiots from trying to suggest it does.

As much as those who study Metaphysics WANT to believe that QM opens that door, they will be sorry to see it does not. QM is high level math and the varied interpretations are just attempts to explain what the math is saying, it's more for the public to be honest. But if you have no degree in the subject you will not understand what they are getting at. Which is how misinformation on the topic proliferates. As you can see in the link we get a lot of people either using the terms incorrectly to make their point or just outright saying that quantum physics says X when it doesn't in the slightest. Though to correct the misinformation would require teaching the public the subject and that is not as attractive as the interpretations.

"Trained mystics" is the equivalent of saying you're a level 110 Warlock in World of Warcraft.

I don't think so. You are attempting to draw a line between justifiable and radical skepticism when the evidence on hand seems to lean more towards radical skepticism. I've already mentioned a few of the many examples of how flawed our senses are and how easy they are to mislead. Your position of "justifiable" is not tenable. I've given you plenty of quotes that explain why.

In regards to the friend lying it's not unreasonable to be open to the fact they might turn into Hitler next week. It's unlikely to occur but it could happen. It also would make you doubt their words in the future because they did it once. Scientists are also human and therefor prone to the same errors and lapses in judgment that the rest of us are so why should they be trusted? Why should I trust their observations when one cannot prove they have observations, etc?

I think trying to draw a line between justified and radical is just splitting hairs. It's all skepticism, the question of where to stop speaks more to the comfort level of the person not the topic.

Sorry about that quote, this one is better. The question is on "how you do prove the existence of anything beyond one's perception".

All evidence you will ever encounter is evidence of your own perception and nothing else. There is no evidence available, not of the type you seek. Neither will logic nor reasoning, nor anything similar help you; they are perceived as well, and not only that, they all rest—down on the very deepest level—on assumptions. This is true for any theory, without fail. These assumptions are for you to discard (or cling to) as you see fit, since there is no evidence for them either.

The very idea of "proof" is just an instance of the longing of mankind. This longing for stability and security is born out of our fear. "What if there is nobody else?" "What if I'm imagining it all?" "What if..." But such questions will not suffice. "Someone else" is clearly in the realm of ideas and hope. At least, you have no means to conclude anything else; nobody does! People will scream and shout; they will do anything to deny this fact. Remember this, and you will probably start noticing it yourself.

So in the end, one doesn't know whether everything is as it seems. That's all there is to it. You may very well keep believing in the "stuff out there," that's fine, but remember that it will always remain a belief. You could argue that solipsism is completely useless (it is, under most definitions of "use"), but know that it is not less true just because of that.

The rest is up to you. Embrace or deny; each option will bring both joy and sorrow. Good luck.

Is it though? I mean there is literally tons of evidence that show how fallible our sensations are. The biggest one being how we don't perceive all of reality itself and the things that we build are based on our imperfect sensations. So if it's imperfect all the way down then how can any of that be called knowledge? Neither you nor I can verify the existence of anything "outside" of us or whether it exists. It's something that must be taken on faith. You call it extreme but is it? I mean when there are so many examples of the fallibility and imperfection of a medium on what grounds do you have to believe what you are perceiving is the truth?

I heard it mentioned that any branch of knowledge is based on faith, faith that our observations are true observations and that we aren't being misled by some evil deity or whatever you want to call it. Like I quoted before, we cannot confirm or determine whether anything beyond our thoughts actually exists.

This is more than just a friend telling one lie, and astrology has no evidence to support it. There is plenty of evidence to show how imperfect our senses are. Even the philosophers of old knew this and began to question whether what we see or experience is really "there". In the end one can never know.

I am a solipsist as is everyone else (you too) — most believe there is actually an external reality peopled with other minds.

In my solipsistic worldview, each of our realities exist in superposition with all other realities. To each of us there is only our personal reality which is formed by our brains through consciousness, which constructs a mashup of external stimuli, transduced via our sense detectors into meaning and internal stimuli from memory, beliefs, dreams, and ideas (also via consciousness) which color our perception (perception is reality) of externally experienced (putatively shared) reality.

As we create each other ~7.5 billion potential creations (to use an electronics analogy, most of those potentials (other minds) are buried in our background noise, practically speaking we only create images of those of whom we are aware from signals which can be distinguished from the noise much the same as a time slice of superposed sounds in a recording.) Those signals (entities) are strengthened in proportion to our awareness, the emotional investment with which we imbue them, or by proximity, immediate or extended (a prime example of extension being social media).

This all happens in superposition. Our immediate realities occupy the local environs in overlaid dimensional layers and they seem to be spatiotemporally oriented, more or less. This creates the illusion of a common experience. We mostly agree this illusion (as we don’t realize that it’s an illusion) generally comports to a framework that facillitates social convention and harmony, albeit subconsciously.

All experiences are unique to the individual’s perception (perception is reality) and shared by co-creation of the event. Sometimes people’s perceptions are so out of sync with each other’s that there can be no agreement, comportment or even acknowledgement that the “shared” event could be other than the individual’s manufactured experience (cf. Trump’s perception vs. the press.)

What could skepticism that everything we observe and know about the world is fake possibly be grounded in? Doubt has to be based on something, we can't just doubt things just for doubt's sake. — Saphsin

Besides the optical illusions, the fact that our senses don't perceive all reality, dreams, the effects of psychotropic substances on our perceptions, the rubber hand illusion when it comes to selfhood, do I need to continue? I mean the senses have been a subject of doubt for as long as philosophy has existed, likely with the Allegory of the Cave. Most people who espouse solipsism say "how can you prove otherwise".

Solipsism is recognizing that you can't prove, or even determine, whether anything outside of your thoughts exists. So solipsism is a fact. But I guess you are asking whether it's possible that the world as you perceive it doesn't exist.

You see my point?

That's been my issue, that just because someone believes something means there is some truth to it, there isn't. That was my mistake.

The problem I have is the extreme end, where you really get challenged. Where what you thought to be certain and obvious turns out to not be so. I'm still trying to process that I can't prove or determine if anything outside my thoughts exists. The external world is something I took for granted until philosophy challenged that. That would be an example of where challenging your assumptions is a bad thing and where I fail to see the merit of doing so. Even challenging how I know things (or how do you know you know). Please enlighten to my the merit of tearing asunder my certainty of others and external reality.

In my experience a lie can also avoid disaster and give peace of mind to troubled folks. Refusing to be comforted and erring on the side of caution in my experience tends to pan out poorly.

I can understand that skepticism of some things has merit, but from what I gathered it's far removed from the practice of the skeptics of old who doubted pretty much everything and in some instances held no beliefs (Pyrrhonism).

You can look at the current president as an example of how doubt is a slippery slope, people are losing faith in the institutions that run this country because of one guy. He might as well be the definition of solipsism because he certainly doesn't live in our reality, but that emboldens others and with fake news on top of that doubt is everywhere and reality is what you want it to be. Doubt is indeed a slippery slope and the more you practice it the more you begin to unknowingly doubt things that are fundamental to your sanity. Although this is speaking from personal experience and from some philosophy majors I spoke to in my school (and professors).

I'm seriously asking by the by.

My issue is where does one draw the line. At what point is skepticism too far and according to whom? I mean these standards that we set are essentially just arbitrary at the end of the day right?

Do you deny that it would be a more pleasant society if people weren't homophobic and that's a "better" way of running society? Not so different from other normative questions like "how to play better chess" or "how to be a better scientist" They're objective claims given certain assumptions we adhere to. How to be a better human being among others is another one of them. Just because they're not exactly the same as scientific claims doesn't mean they're just empty words. — Saphsin

Better is not objective though even with assumptions. I mean why assume X is better than Y? I wouldn't argue that society would be better if people were not homophobia because that wouldn't be a true statement. It would be true to say it would be different but not better. Even better chess or be a better scientists are subjective claims that aren't grounded in solid "hard" rules.

All this is the result of challenging your assumptions, at some point there is nothing left and you have to rely on illogical leaps of faith to get out.

UPDATE: I backslide a little bit because on quora I see a handful of people saying that it is true.

https://www.quora.com/The-idea-of-solipsism-is-driving-me-nuts-Is-a-solipsistic-world-a-likely-possibility

Solipsism is recognizing that you can't prove, or even determine, whether anything outside of your thoughts exists. So solipsism is a fact. But I guess you are asking whether it's possible that the world as you perceive it doesn't exist.

The answer is that it's not only possible, a logical case can be made that it's likely.

For example, the Simulation Argument goes like this:

It's pretty clear that computers will eventually be so powerful that even a normal household pc can simulate a whole person's life so well that someone inside the simulation can't tell it's not real. If that happens, and becomes common, there will quickly end up being more simulates people than real people, so the odds will be that any given person is a simulation. And there's no reason to think that hasn't already happened, and you're inside such a simulation.

On the other hand, I have some good news:

You're definitely not the only real person, because I know I (or at least my thoughts and perceptions) exist.

So now you can let me know if you are real, and we'll be set.

Well except that's exactly what a fake person would say. So we're screwed.

Or at least I am.

I don't honestly know if the simulation hypothesis is evidence for it. I mean that's just another thought experiment. But it seems like the argument here is that you can't prove or determine whether anything outside your mind exists. I agree with the "prove" part, not sure about the determine aspect of it.

If this is what they are defining as solipsism then yes, I would have to begrudgingly concede that I can't prove or determine whether anything outside my mind exists. I won't say it doesn't, and it still doesn't explain how my mind is generating all this stuff without any source material to work with.

How do I deal with people saying it's true or a fact?