Well, if jgill cant help . . . — universeness
A therapist is not going to help you with a philosophical problem like solipsism, though they can help with reasons for turning our human condition of being separate from others into an intellectual problem where we think we are lacking some knowledge. I would suggest both, especially given that you will come back to it again and again, but I t doesn't sound like you are ready to work on the philosophy yet. I ask that you not post here again unless you are serious, as you must realize you've wasted the time of earnest people actually trying to do philosophy here. If you continue in this vein, I will ask that you be banned until you can convince the admins of your sincerity in wanting to do the work. Good luck. — Antony Nickles
What I’m telling you is, yes, what leads to the conclusion of solipsism is true about our human condition. But having certainty that others exist, knowing that, is not the only consequence of the truth of the skepticism that leads to solipsism, as knowledge of the other and the world is not our only connection. — Antony Nickles
we cannot be factually certain of others and the world — Antony Nickles
But wouldn't a real skeptic (in genuine doubt rather than theory of knowledge hubris) just not know much about me — green flag
Do I just message them or something like that? — Darkneos
The late Dr McCarty seems to have been a man of many talents, including studies of logic. Beyond me, I fear. The length of this piece is challenging on its own. I didn't get far. TonesinDeepFreeze might find it interesting. The idea of relating math to solipsism is bizarre (to me, at least). — jgill
That doesn’t help at all nor get around the issue I’m having
3d — Darkneos
2. More generally, there can be no deductive refutation of this solipsism
employing only premises a committed solipsist would accept: all logically
correct derivations from solipsistically true premises lead to conclusions
that are solipsistically true as well. Any route to a successful refutation of
solipsism must travel via nondeductive inferential paths.
4. Every solipsistic theory that is strict – as defined below – and axiomatic
is the close translational analogue of an axiomatic nonsolipsistic theory. If
the solipsist can axiomatize her nonsolipsistic theories, she can do the same
with their solipsistic correlates.
Any axiomatic theory and set of axioms for that theory in the non‑
solipsistic language can be carried over into the solipsistic language
as a theory with corresponding axioms, provided that the latter
theory is strict. Importantly, it is easy to argue – see the reply to
the third interpretation of the Private Language Argument – that
basic mathematical theories are all strict. Hence, a solipsist can
avail herself of, say, Peano/Dedekind Arithmetic together with its
familiar set of axioms.
I just needed help understanding if he's saying what I think he's saying — Darkneos
Well what I think he means is that every axiom you make as a non solipsist can apply to a solipsist. And if the premises are solipsistically true then the conclusion is solipsistically true.
Yet I’m very doubtful about my interpretation of this as it doesn’t seem to match other areas in his work. — Darkneos
Likewise, let’s say they are actually right (that there are philosophical zombies, with no minds, no consciousness, and let’s say no wills of their own): does that change your experience of them? No. Are you justified in doing abhorrent things to them now that you know? No. Are you alone?. NO: you still interact with them, can talk to them, they can relate to you, they can love you, you can love them—and why would it matter that you are able to think of your own accord while they cannot? — Bob Ross
Path number 2 has been pretty helpful in overcoming this. — Darkneos
So you're saying I got the definition of axiom confused here? — Darkneos
I would push back and say that if they were philosophical zombies then yes that would change my experience of them.
Again I'm pretty doubtful about my interpretation of the math one but I'm not versed in math to check what he's saying.
The vernon press one I'm not touching either, though my brain keeps obsessing over bits and lines in that text and it's really hard for me to reject the COMPULSION to open old wounds again. It's also making me think that he proved it true as well.
I understand what people mean by doing the work when it comes to philosophical inquiry, but that doesn't work for everyone and definitely not for me. Not only can I not read those papers (TBH I'm surprised I managed that much from the math one) but I don't get the arguments they use. It's why I need other people to help because they get it, I'm (to be blunt) not smart enough to.
It's why I need their help with the papers so I can put it all behind me.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.