solipsist cannot believe in anyway distinguishable to herself from disbelieving; she only daydreams without cognitive or epistemic content. — 180 Proof

Well, a person during the REM phase of dreaming is quite solipsistic, don't you think? And in even in a higher state of consciousness during a dream phase where the dreamer knows he or she is dreaming, as in what is called a "lucid" dream, that person is as close to what one may empirically describe as solipsism as can be.

But, entropy makes everything quite a bit more deterministic. Whilst QM remains elusive for high variance in temperature gradients for atomic elements locally, and even non-locally, yea?

Makes no sense. If only your mind is real nothing could count as evidence for or again any claim or belief. Thus, a solipsist can only suspend judging as true or false (i.e. doubt) or simply ignore any prospective counterfactual. A solipsist is a metaphysical neurotic. — 180 Proof

More of the sort of epistemically, they are certain of everything going around them, to the best of their knowledge.

What it means is simply that when a "wave collapses" and a value previously represented by a range of possibilities becomes one possibility — boethius

Only within a certain stochastic process governed by entropy, surely?

True, true. Yet, I think it has to do also with some kind of damp affective feel towards stimuli.

Just doing a second reading, and I suppose this should read:

A solipsist knows there are no other minds.

A solipsist doubts that there are other minds. — 180 Proof

Not true, given a bona fide definition and scope of the issue. Intentionally there's no doubt. Extensionally there should be none.

@Banno, can a solipsist logically doubt?

Sorry Shawn, I was joking. Taking the position that I can only be sure of my own existence, everything I said, beginning with the fact that I responded to you contradicts solipsism. — Fooloso4

Well, yes it's all fun and games. But, I'm interested in the notion that doubt creates a bedrock (Wittgenstein/Descartes) where knowledge can begin. Therefore, the thread.

Do you agree that epistemically, this is the shortest path to disproving solipsism since the solipsist cannot logically doubt?

I tell myself this all the time, but no one listens. And by no one, of course, I mean me. — Fooloso4

Then how can you doubt yourself as a solipsist when you are the same as the World? Or does this world expand when you doubt and can learn new things?

By inference aren't you epistemically certain of any particular of what you are, being a solipsist?

Either way, particular or universal, the self is the ultimate truth for the solipsist in His or Her own World, epistemically.

So, you cannot be doubting, surely?

I could but I'm tired of arguing with myself and ending up doubting myself. — Fooloso4

For all that exists, what is it that you are doubting as a solipsist. Are you really a solipsist?

To say that one is a solipsist is to affirm that one is one and the same with the world, à la Wittgenstein.

Hence, indubitable certainty or epistemic solipsism where no doubt can arise.

Therefore a solipsist cannot doubt.

One interesting point given stochastically evolving QM'cal wavefunctions is that the simulated universe hypothesis would have to incorporate some kind of transfinite logic to compute all the stochastic processes in the logical space of the universe.

Much more work intensive for a computer is what this seems to point towards with stochastic QM.

Well, empirically I've heard of a patient with his amygdala damaged who lived in a state of apathy due to not being able to decide anything.

Poor guy couldn't choose what shoes to wear in the morning.

Apathy might be that place people go between delusions. — synthesis

What makes you say that? I've had some premonition that apathy is expressed due to too much rationality.

Checking out Fashwave, lol

What is the difference between Platos view on mathematics, and the view of a mathematical platonist? — LisaVardy

Mainly historical. But, the divergence is stipulated by science.

I'm pretty sure that bias has been operating in the background. I fathom that in the near future with all the brain datasets from companies that utilize neural arrays or even basic brainwaves to devices that enable spinal cord injured to walk again will be producing a vast array of data to work on.

My concern is mostly the trends that have been governing companies and government agencies in making decisions on differing scenarios or political posturing throughout the past 10-20 years or since the .com boom. It seems to me that if bias is such a conundrum, in regards to dominant trends in political behavior, then what ought one do to remove it, as the 'ought' is justified, at least I think so?

What I specifically mention is reducing the chance of making erroneous decisions in between tense confrontations such as military warfare or even the US and Russian front.

All that you have said is cause for concern on this topic, specifically, don't you think?

Something about QM:

If the wavefunction evolves, then temperature gradients determine how it does due to lower entropy.

This is Kripke in a nutshell. — frank

Sorry, that's a de re. De dicto, de jure, and de facto's take precedence to determine the de re's.

It seems strange to incorporate 2D semantics where the referent isn't subject to modalities like Hesperus or Phosphorus.

Hence the need for an actual observation to take place to endow it with the name 'Venus'.

Personally, I believe decoherence happens whilst the wavefunction evolves during that event.

That's what has got me pondering on the truth that Bell's Theorem might be true for low entropic states only.

Frank, Shawn, what is a good resource for a primer on this stuff? Is Kripke pretty accessible? — RogueAI

Naming and Necessity. It's cheap.

He's talking about what a speaker does and doesn't know. He's pointing to intensional operators. — frank

Yeah, I was just pointing out that's it's not really chemistry; but, science ad hoc, according to Kripke.

The OP is clearly talking about intension, not cases of aposteriori necessity. — frank

How so? Point it out for me.

Yes, modally, de jure is what Kripke calls it in technically true terms.

That's not really the issue though. What's of significance is that we often can't layout the meaning of a word by pointing to it's extension. — frank

Extension? Meaning is not relevant here, but what is, is that the extension is enabled for lack of a better term, by science.

Banno plays a confusing game.

Transworld identification between world alleviates the referent issue, and a pinch of scientific thought about the misnomer for water in science.

Between two words (de facto) they denote the same thing, with the scientific understanding being, XnY or H2O

So, it's essentially pessimism, right? What about being not optimistic about this all; but, rather pragmatic in stating that aging should be lessened or decreased.

In the grand picture of things, 70-80 years is miniscule for a species to collectively survive or undertake grand projects like space exploration or multiplanetary colonies, yes?

Hello again David,

I have wondered about the psychological attitude of human beings to accept death as an inevitable consequence of living, where evil is a disregard for life.

It seems strange that people seem to accept these facts as tautological, and instead continue saving money in a bank account instead of investing it in something so fundamental as to live longer or potentially for as long as possible.

Why is this all so?

Not humanity, but transhumanity. — David Pearce

How is the gap overcome legally? I've been in the nootropics community for about 10 years, and there's some kind of strong desire to advance human cognition with drugs like the MAPS association or otherwise Neuralink. Yet, legally its hard to overcome some of the problems associated with transhumanity and neoclassical legalism in the West...

Why not try for it in case its possible, right?

Hello David,

I had a topic I made before. Did I get it right in that topic?

See:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8735/david-pearce-on-hedonism

People are just saving or banks hoarding, pick one...

Quantitative Easing did the same in 2008 under Obama and it all ended up in banks. Check the velocity of money first...

It is otherwise stated. indeed, that's the point of OC — Banno

I know only of Moore's paradox about the chap in his house doubting that its or it is raining outside whilst it is. Is that of any use?

Should that have been 'Well, the term "use" defines analyticity...' as in, are you claiming Witti defined analyticity in terms of use?

It's clear from the discussion here and in Sam's thread that hinge propositions need not be analytic. That's their point, really. — Banno

In case I misunderstood, hinge propositions don't appear as often in the Investigations as in OC. With the sentiment from what I recall from Wittgenstein to be in performing acts or deeds.

Unless otherwise states a hinge proposition is a tautology in manner.