If we accept the observation that we only ever experience Sensory Data; — Treatid
This isn't the result of word games. The observations that underlie solipsism are not a matter of semantics. We observe that we do not experience anything that isn't Sensory Data. — Treatid
The existence of an Objective Universe is a mistaken assumption that leads to the above solipsistic interpretations. — Treatid
Strong Solipsism
We only ever experience Sensory Data. We cannot experience anything that is not Sensory Data. — Treatid
The underlying observation of Solipsism is that we only ever experience Sensory Data. — Treatid
"Cogito Ergo Sum" - René Descartes ("I think, therefore I am").
This statement signifies that the only thing we can know with certainty is our own existence. The existence of everything else cannot be proven beyond all doubt. — Treatid
Philosophers, mathematicans and physicists have been looking for definitive, absolute truths to build upon. Objective truths. An Objective Universe. — Treatid
This is something you are already familiar with as philosophers. You already know that objective definitions are a hard problem.
Don't fight this result. Lean into it. Accept it. Then work forward from there. — Treatid
Actually, whereas Descartes may have proven “thinking” exists, his leap to proving his own existence is less certain. He argued: — Thales
There's a good summary in the following post if that helps.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 — Philosophim
The fundamental unit of the universe is a relationship.
The universe is a network of relationships that changes.
Why? Because we can see that is what it is.
The universe changes, so it must be composed of stuff that can change. The universe is connected so it must be composed of things that connect. The universe is diverse so it must be composed of differences.
Objects do not have these properties. The universe is not composed of objects.
We label the things Relationships. — Treatid
“In an agential realist account, matter does not refer to a fixed substance; rather, matter is substance in its intra-active becoming—not a thing but a doing, a congealing of agency. Matter is a stabilizing and destabilizing process of iterative intra-activity. Phenomena—the smallest material units (relational “atoms”)—come to matter through this process of ongoing intra-activity. “Matter” does not refer to an inherent, fixed property of abstract, independently existing objects; rather, “matter” refers to phenomena in their ongoing materialization. On my agential realist elaboration, phenomena do not merely mark the epistemological inseparability of “observer” and “observed”; rather, phenomena are the ontological inseparability of agentially intra-acting “components.” That is, phenomena are ontologically primitive relations—relations without preexisting relata. The notion of intraaction (in contrast to the usual “interaction,” which presumes the prior existence of independent entities/relata) represents a profound conceptual shift. It is through specific agential intra-actions that the boundaries and properties of the “components” of phenomena become determinate and that particular embodied concepts become meaningful.”
“In my agential realist account, scientific practices do not reveal what is already there; rather, what is ‘‘disclosed’’ is the effect of the intra-active engagements of our participation with/in and as part of the world’s differential becoming. Which is not to say that humans are the condition of possibility for the existence of phenomena. Phenomena do not require cognizing minds for their existence; on the contrary, ‘‘minds’’ are themselves material phenomena that emerge through specific intra-actions. Phenomena are real material beings. What is made manifest through technoscientific practices is an expression of the objective existence of particularmaterial phenomena. This is, after all, a realist conception of scientific practices. But unlike in traditional conceptions of realism, ‘‘objectivity’’ is not preexistence (in the ontological sense) or the preexistent made manifest to the cognitive mind (in the epistemological sense).
In accordance with Heidegger's ontological intuition, difference must be articulation and connection in itself; it must relate different to different without any mediation whatsoever by the identical, the similar, the analogous or the opposed. There must be a differenciation of difference, an in-itself which is like a differenciator, by virtue of which the different is gathered all at once rather than represented on condition of a prior resemblance, identity, analogy or opposition.
When the identity of things dissolves, being begins to revolve around the different. That which is or returns has no prior constituted identity: things are reduced to the difference which fragments them, and to all the differences which are implicated in it and through
which they pass
I like the style/rigour of what you are doing. But I think what you are trying to do is impossible. — Treatid
Yes, it would make communication clearer and faster if we had rigorous definitions that everyone understood and agreed with. That isn't reality. — Treatid
For example, I think you cannot justify the distinction you make between thought and experience.
Thought and experience are aspects of a single whole. You can't have thought without experience and vice versa. — Treatid
If we get into the weeds - we don't know what 'thinking', 'existing', 'experience' or 'self' mean in a definite manner. — Treatid
If you can describe a static object you will have shown that I'm wrong and that I don't know what I'm talking about. — Treatid
A. You haven't actually described anything. "Objects are not relationships" is not a description of an Object. — Treatid
B. What you have actually described is relationships. My default position is that if you manage to describe something it must have actually been a (set of) relationships in the first place. — Treatid
The universe changes, so it must be composed of stuff that can change. The universe is connected so it must be composed of things that connect. The universe is diverse so it must be composed of differences.
Objects do not have these properties. The universe is not composed of objects.
We label the things Relationships. — Treatid
Kind of like this from physicist Karen Barad? — Joshs
I appreciate it, but we're on the philosophy boards. — Philosophim
We can claim things are possible or impossible, but its all about proving it. — Philosophim
Do you have a specific reason why we should disregard solipsism and the observations that lead to it? — Treatid
In philosophy, solipsism is an extreme form of subjective idealism that denies that the human mind has any valid ground for believing in the existence of anything but itself. The British idealist F.H. Bradley, in Appearance and Reality (1893), characterized the solipsistic view as follows
“I cannot transcend experience, and experience must be my experience. From this it follows that nothing beyond my self exists; for what is experience is its [the self’s] states.”
I'm about to come in hot. I can do this because you are making clear statements of position that I can engage with.
Thank you for that. — Treatid
It is impossible to prove anything beyond all doubt (except, perhaps, your own existence is self-evident to you). — Treatid
There are no (logical or mathematical) proofs. — Treatid
It is the nature of the universe that you cannot have definite proofs (as defined by formal logic and axiomatic mathematics). — Treatid
Solispsism destroys Axiomatic Mathematics. — Treatid
Do you have a specific reason why we should disregard solipsism and the observations that lead to it? — Treatid
My argument centers on the Idealist conception of self expressed in the definition. — Joshs
There are no (logical or mathematical) proofs. — Treatid
Can you prove this? — Philosophim
I'm confused as to why you think this is an argument against solipsism or its' underlying observations.
You point out that the definition of 'I' or 'self' is unclear. I agree with this.
I think you are then making an (unstated) assumption that if we cannot define the strict meaning of words then arguments involving those words are meaningless and we shall all just give up. — Treatid
If a contradiction were to appear inside the universe then, logically, the universe must disappear in a puff of logic.
According to Axiomatic Mathematics, there are many inconsistent systems. These systems exist within the universe. Why hasn't the universe poofed out of existence. — Treatid
The separation between Axiomatic (or Logical) systems doesn't exist. — Treatid
Axiomatic mathematics must have distinctions between systems in order to exist. But the boundaries can't be seen. There is nothing to measure. They are the poster child of belief without evidence. — Treatid
If everything is connected then Logic, Axiomatic Mathematics and the whole universe are inconsistent. By the rules of Axiomatic Mathematics inconsistent systems have no information content.
Axiomatic Mathematics needs a distinction between systems to exist. — Treatid
Logic is a theory of arguments. It (tries to) describe how a form of communication works. — Treatid
Your existence encompasses the whole of your existence. All your experiences are part and parcel of your existence. You are as certain of your direct experiences as you are of anything else. — Treatid
Logic never persuaded you that you feel pain and pleasure. You feel pain and pleasure because... you do. — Treatid
We can (indeed, must) use our personal experiences as the solid foundation upon which to build... everything. — Treatid
Solipsism says we cannot know anything with certainty except the self.
This isn't wrong - but the self includes everything you ever experience. When you stub your toe on a table; that experience is certain. Definite. — Treatid
A physical sentence isn't wrong. It isn't right either. These words don't have any meaning. They are just shapes in the universe. — Treatid
You, personally, decide how you will respond to what you read. — Treatid
Right and wrong (truth and false) are entirely subjective opinions determined by each individual. — Treatid
Is your purpose in this thread simply to critique the assumed pre-eminent role of math and logic in the ascertaining of truth ( in which case you have a lot of company, not only in philosophy but in the social sciences)? Or is your aim also to critique what you understand to be the cutting edge of ideas in philosophy and the sciences ( in which case you run the risk of reinventing the wheel)? — Joshs
You keep on referring to me my, I. Would you be amenable to getting rid of these terms and instead just describing a constantly changing center of activity that we mistakenly refer to as a ‘self’? — Joshs
I was only introducing a commonly accepted definition of solipsism, which isn’t unclear at all, and wondering if it corresponds to your use of the word. And if it doesn’t, how does your use differ? — Joshs
Is your purpose in this thread simply to critique the assumed pre-eminent role of math and logic in the ascertaining of truth ( in which case you have a lot of company, not only in philosophy but in the social sciences)? Or is your aim also to critique what you understand to be the cutting edge of ideas in philosophy and the sciences ( in which case you run the risk of reinventing the wheel)? — Joshs
Axiomatic mathematics must have distinctions between systems in order to exist. But the boundaries can't be seen. There is nothing to measure. They are the poster child of belief without evidence. — Treatid
I don't understand what you're stating here. Could you give an example? — Philosophim
The Principle of Explosion is why inconsistency is a problem. — Treatid
While the belief in an objective reality distinct from our subjective perceptions is widespread - it is a belief without evidence. — Treatid
Hm not sure - because no base but a solid library exists...Challenge Time
If you can describe a static object you will have shown that I'm wrong and that I don't know what I'm talking about.
The two main arguments I'm going to fall back on will be:
A. You haven't actually described anything. "Objects are not relationships" is not a description of an Object.
B. What you have actually described is relationships. My default position is that if you manage to describe something it must have actually been a (set of) relationsips in the first place.
This is, of course, a blatant attempt to get you to engage with the ideas of what language is capable of and what it isn't capable of.
Can you describe something that has no similarities to any of your previous experiences? — Treatid
Maybe death? How about a near death experience, describing what is happening when a person thinks or actually thinks and IS dying but lives to share the experience...That to me, seems like foreign territory- meaning not a place I can speak from....dying is like nothing that I have experienced before. (unless of course, i have--unless i have my own NDE or actually die how can these descriptions or personal accounts amount to anything except maybe perhaps at best, hope for another?Can you describe something that has no similarities to any of your previous experiences? — Treatid
right, its who is holding the value and using the understanding. self is capable of given the current experience of direct reality (external world-the illusion is too clear (if it is an illusion, i think illusions are to be unclear or blurry at best...unreliable [like what you said above, "nothing like ive experienced before"], until one can focus...provoking the brain, thinking a thought is forced upon brain by us... (goal, "why is the illusion scary at first experience and how does awareness of illusion make them any less real or less scary? "why did that illusion stand out, what made it/is intriguing or interesting in perceiving it?"] Maybe because its unfamiliar territory and the brain cant be stopped...the body wants to stop once it realizes it has to break from usual mindless actions and become real...put to the test. revalue, replaying, remembering, recreating...reusing, refuting, realizing...it isnt what it seems, but on purpose..these illlusions arent just in reality as illusions, but when we see something full circle we call our past beliefs illusions but they cant be that if we are calling them that, awareness of an illusion..distinct difference in grasping what was "normal" or real, is altered..not easily adapted, goes back to old way of seeing, illusion was temporary or self induced (drugs, alcohol, lacking sleep, etc) we can blame or point to answers of how, why we saw an "illusion" based on definitions on paper, and plans can be put in place also from paper but when its show time... how is it not avoidable [tricking the brain] from there or prevented [with others, medical assistance or therapy or under doctor supervision or observation, being monitored makes us feel safe here maybe?If you were to experience something without any precedent you wouldn't be able to convey your experience.
"It was like nothing you have ever seen before." — Treatid
Evidence based belief sounds weak to me...like its reasonable behavior of a sheep or a follower. I don't question faith unless I have to... — Kizzy
The Principle of Explosion is why inconsistency is a problem. — Treatid
Sure, but you never pointed out the inconsistency that destroys Axiomatic math. — Philosophim
As a demonstration of the principle, consider two contradictory statements—"All lemons are yellow" and "Not all lemons are yellow"—and suppose that both are true. If that is the case, anything can be proven, e.g., the assertion that "unicorns exist", by using the following argument:
1. We know that "Not all lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be true.
2. We know that "All lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be true.
3. Therefore, the two-part statement "All lemons are yellow or unicorns exist" must also be true, since the first part of the statement ("All lemons are yellow") has already been assumed, and the use of "or" means that if even one part of the statement is true, the statement as a whole must be true as well.
4. However, since we also know that "Not all lemons are yellow" (as this has been assumed), the first part is false, and hence the second part must be true to ensure the two-part statement to be true, i.e., unicorns exist (this inference is known as the Disjunctive syllogism).
5. The procedure may be repeated to prove that unicorns do not exist (hence proving an additional contradiction where unicorns do and do not exist), as well as any other well-formed formula. Thus, there is an explosion of true statements. — Wikipedia
Here we have the contradicting statements "All lemons are yellow" and "Not all lemons are yellow" proving that "unicorns exist". — Treatid
1. We know that "Not all lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be true.
2. We know that "All lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be true. — Wikipedia
You ask me to point to the specific inconsistency that destroys Axiomatic Mathematics...
You test my ability to take all posts in good faith. — Treatid
Treatid, I wouldnt task my worst enemy with such a job of analyzing my BS...maybe because its a bit revealing but it is indeed a hot flaming mess burrowed yet not letting the void keep anyone stuck. I am fired up in this void, even alone...I light up with any glimpse of acknowledgment, so thanks for that at least.As such, I recognise what you are saying as genuine reflections of what you think and believe.
However, I'm not going to do statistical analyses on your stream of consciousness. Partly because no-one has time to do that but mainly because the process of creating structure on the page out of structure in the mind is an essential component of dialogue.
The effort to represent our internal shapes in an external format is part of learning and growing.
Even if no-one reads what we write, we learn from the process of structuring our writing. By examining and considering our thoughts as we express them we can change our ideas even before we engage with other people.
Stream of consciousness can be a useful insight into our own thoughts but as a form of communication with other people it lacks an essential element of self-reflection. — Treatid
I think you have a severe misunderstanding. — Philosophim
I think you have a severe misunderstanding.
— Philosophim
Right back at ya, big fellow (in a friendly, affectionate and non-gender assumptive manner). — Treatid
These axioms can be anything. Absolutely anything. There is no constraint on what axioms you choose. — Treatid
Proof = "consistent within an axiomatic system"
Your belief in the reality or otherwise of a given axiom is irrelevant. If "All lemons are yellow" is a statement within a consistent axiomatic system then "All lemons are yellow" is proven (within that axiomatic system). — Treatid
It is almost always impossible to show that an axiomatic system is consistent. — Treatid
One of the problems is that axiomatic systems actually include all statements that are valid according to the rules of the axioms. Some of these statements cannot be found by iterating on existing statements. — Treatid
Most significant axiomatic proofs rely on axiomatic systems that cannot be proven to be consistent. They are believed to be consistent. — Treatid
What is blue? Define blue. Is blue the same category as yellow? can a lemon be both blue and yellow? — Treatid
Are all lemons identical? How different can one lemon be from another lemon and still be a lemon? — Treatid
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.