Not making and checking unfounded (which is already a red flag as what is considered unfounded is debatable) assumptions while in the process using unfounded assumptions.

They don’t even know if they’re thinking or if they exist, both of which are unfounded: — Darkneos

:chin: and :smile: Précisément.

Well the Video I linked to aruges how you can't even know if you're thikning or if there is a you.

SO while it appears to be skepticism it's really just fantasy it's doing.

Well the Video I linked to aruges how you can't even know if you're thikning or if there is a you.

SO while it appears to be skepticism it's really just fantasy it's doing. — Darkneos

:up: I'll watch the video later. Danke.

I still want to know about my orignal post though

I skimmed through the quora answer; didn't find anything noteworthy.

Solpisism is epistemological and not ontological in nature. It's about what we can know about reality rather than what reality is. Your question is moot.

There really is no logic that can reasonably jump to solipsism. Just because we can’t be “sure” (and to be frank we can’t be sure of anything so that’s not a metric to use) doesn’t mean it’s all in your head or you’re the only conscious thing. That’s not what explains our observations so it doesn’t logically follow. — Darkneos

Epistemological solipsism is the philosophical idea that one can only be sure about the existence of one's own mind. The existence of an external world is not necessarily rejected but one can not be sure of its existence.

You write that "and to be frank we can't be sure of anything", but that is exactly the metric to make the jump to epistemological solipsism.

Your position that "we can't be sure of anything" is the point of epistemological solipsism.

how is it moot, the guy tried to prove solipsism.

Except you can’t be sure of the existence of your own mind. Hence another argument based on nonsense.

You write that "and to be frank we can't be sure of anything", but that is exactly the metric to make the jump to epistemological solipsism.

Your position that "we can't be sure of anything" is the point of epistemological solipsism.

Wrong again bud. Can’t be sure of anything just leaves you stuck then. You can’t be sure you exist or your mind, you don’t jump to solipsism from there. YOU CAN’T. At least not without leaps of faith like any other philosophy.

The position of “not be sure of anything” isn’t the point of epistemological solipsism (which let’s face it is just splitting hairs from metaphysical solipsism). Solipsists are at lest sure they and their mind exist, and yet have no basis for thinking so. They just assume that to be the case.

So still not correct there.

Metaphysical statements are not true or false. They have no truth value. They are the underlying assumptions, Collingwood called them "absolute presuppositions," that underlie our understanding of the nature of reality. They are the foundations of science. — T Clark quoting R. G. Collingwood

Is it your understanding from the above that assumptions_presuppositions cannot be refuted?

They can’t. You can’t refute god, simulation, etc, or anything metaphysical really. There’s no way to really test it, just like you can’t prove solipsism.

There’s a set of assumptions you have to make about the world, without which you can’t do any thing. Even solipsism assumes the subject or mind exists, well that and a lot of other things like assuming the area around them isn’t real, that other people don’t have minds. It assumes too much that it breaks Occam’s razor

You can’t refute god, simulation, etc, or anything metaphysical really. — Darkneos

There’s a set of assumptions you have to make about the world, without which you can’t do any thing. — Darkneos

Okay. Metaphysics calls for a special type of assumption: an assumption that resembles an axiom.

Everyday assumptions are refutable: We had been working on the assumption that the murder took place after midnight. When the detectives proved it happened before midnight, our defense of the suspect collapsed.

how is it moot, the guy tried to prove solipsism — Darkneos

It's moot because ex mea (humble) sententia, it conflates epistemology with metaphysics (ontology).

Seems like same thing as far as solipsism goes.

Yeah but that's not what we're talking about.

Seems like same thing as far as solipsism goes. — Darkneos

I don't see it though unless you mean it in a Schopenhaurean Will sense.

I don't it just honestly sounds like splitting hairs to be honest since it's not knowing if there is anything else but you. Though that would raise the question about why are you even talking to other people or posting on the internet. The response they get is "they're going along, they're playing the game" which is just absurd, honestly.

I wouldn't know mon ami. I usually try not to get confused, but it seems I am ... quite confused.

I don't see what there is to be confused about. There is no real difference between metaphysical or epistemological solipsism, it's just splitting hairs when it's ultimately the same thing it's talking about.

But the more you think about it the more of a nothingburger it is. I mean you can't test it, you can't even know, or feel the difference if there even is one, and if there was you'd never know since all you have is your perception so you can't validate it. You'd have to be able to get outside of your perception to do so but that would be invalidating solipsism as soon as you do. So.........................................................

I don't know. I just thinking about it I have to wonder why even think about it?

Well, I dunno about you, but I am confused. Perhaps you need to look at the matter from a different angle, oui?

There is no other angle. Sometimes people trying to make a distinction can't see the forest for the trees. Like when you break it down there is no distinction between metaphysical solipsism or epistemological.

That's an interesting comment. There must be/there'a gotta be a way of either proving/disproving solipsism, right?

Nope. It’s impossible because there is no way to get outside of your perception. Ironically getting outside your perception would disprove it immediately. So in order to test or prove it it would have to be wrong.

Nope. It’s impossible because there is no way to get outside of your perception. Ironically getting outside your perception would disprove it immediately. So in order to test or prove it it would have to be wrong. — Darkneos

I see. Good point.

Solipsism is a "Not even wrong" ontological claim. Whether its true or not it doesn't change a thing in how we register and evaluate Empirical Regularities and External Limitations of reality, plus it is really arrogant to believe that all the fine art and great music and philosophical ideas and crimes against humanity were the product of one mind.
As observers we will still have to struggle in order to survive, seek well being , avoid suffering and many of us will eventually fail.
Like any pseudo philosophical idea (an idea that doesn't succeed in expanding our understanding and wisdom) discussions on Solipsism place should be in a bar with a glass of beer on hand, not in a philosophical forum.
The idea of "simulation hypothesis" was an official attempt to justify the place of soliphism in Philosophy and science but after it was proven wrong (back in the 2017)by science its was dismissed for good.

I heard a funny story told by Alvin Plantinga, a well know philosopher of religion. One day he visited a surgeon who proclaimed that he was convinced solipsism was indeed true. Upon leaving his office Plantinga asked one of the nurses what they thought of the surgeon, they replied "We make sure we take very good care of him."

In what type of Logic do you want your proof to be served to you?

I'm replying to you because you started this discussion. I hope I'm not being too disruptive by intervening at this late stage. I have read the discussion so far. I hope I can bring something new to it.

The core of the solipsism seems to be “I alone exist” (call this P). From my point of view, this is clearly empirically false. I can recognize other people and interact with them; my training for this began within minutes of being born, before I could speak or think.

But a solipsist is clearly a person, living in the same world as me. But I an equivalent belief - that other people exist. Certainly refutation or proof of the normal kinds are not available. So this must be a proposition of a different kind – hinge, conceptual, grammatical. That does not mean it is trivial. However, I can only decide how serious or trivial it is when I understand it.

It may be that solipsism is based on the observation that I am the subject of my experienes, make my various judgements, have various desires and values and perform various actions. No-one else can do those things. Indeed, some people think that this is what constitutes my self, and similar observations underpin various other ideas in philosophy.

For me, “I” designates the same thing as my name, namely me. That does not mean a special part of me, but rather the whole of me (although that whole, like other things with parts, can undergo various changes as time goes by.)

So the difference is a difference in the idea of the self, person, human being.

How to understand and evaluate this? Assuming that everything that can be said in one language can also be said in the other, it will come down to different attitudes and ways of interacting with other people. And it will likely be a pragmatic decision.

That's not even close. It's literally what it says on the box, nothing else. That you are the only thing that exists, or only person.

Other forms say you can only be sure that you exist and everythign else is uncertain but this is the same thing and just splitting hairs.

I don't understand. Do you mean that solipsism consists of just that statement "I alone exist", in two versions, "I exist and nothing else exists" and "I exist and no other person exists".

No reasons, no explanation of what "exists" means or "I" means?

No response to the question what that assertion means if there is no-one to hear it?

Or is it just that each solipsist has their own meaning and reasons?

I have to look again at the links you gave in the beginning.

That seems to be a box with a label but no content.

more like you don't understand what solipsism is and likely are making it out to be more than that.