On what ground do you disagree with p1?

What's the formal fallacy? — creativesoul

I didn't say it was a formal fallacy. But as you noted yourself, you begged the question, which is a fallacy.

Understood.

I do not have an argument to support that. I thought it would be easy enough to invent one. I was wrong... at least for now.

:blush:

No one anywhere in philosophy proper has drawn and maintained the distinction between thinking about thought and belief and thought and belief. — creativesoul

No? Thoughts/beliefs are what everyone has, but thinking about thoughts and beliefs is called "philosophy", no? :chin:

4. 'Objects' of physiological sensory perception are external to thought/belief. — creativesoul

Do you have an argument to support p4? — Michael

I thought there was such an argument, but (having just tried to describe it), I find I was mistaken. :yikes: The solipsist argument cannot be refuted or disproven. :wink: As long as this is the case, I don't think there can be an argument to support point #4. :chin:

If we want point #4, I think we must declare it as an axiom (assumption; guess).

I thought there was such an argument, but (having just tried to describe it), I find I was mistaken. :yikes: The solipsist argument cannot be refuted or disproven. :wink: As long as this is the case, I don't think there can be an argument to support point #4. :chin:

If we want point #4, I think we must declare it as an axiom (assumption; guess). — Pattern-chaser

This is not true on a plurality of levels...

The solipsist argument is false for it is impossible to arrive at such a complex high level of abstract thought and belief without an external world.

Solipsism is existentially dependent upon thinking about one's own thought and belief.
Thinking about one's own thought and belief is existentially dependent upon drawing correlations between different things. One mind is not different things.

Solipsism is existentially dependent upon precisely what it denies the existence of.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based upon all examples of thought and belief, including but not limited to solipsism:

1.)All thought and belief is meaningful.
2.)All meaning is existentially dependent upon something to become symbol/sign, something to become symbolized/significant and a creature capable of drawing correlations, connections, and/or associations between the two.
3.)All philosophical positions are existentially dependent upon something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized and a creature capable of drawing correlations, connections, and/or associations between the two.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All philosophical positions are existentially dependent upon thinking about one's own thought and belief.
Solipsism is a philosophical position.
Solipsism is existentially dependent upon thinking about one's own thought and belief.
Thinking about one's own thought and belief is existentially dependent upon pre-existing thought and belief.
All thought and belief is meaningful.
All meaning is existentially dependent upon something to become symbol/sign, something to become symbolized/significant and a creature capable of drawing correlations, connections, and/or associations between the two.
All philosophical positions are existentially dependent upon something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized and a creature capable of drawing correlations, connections, and/or associations between the two.
Solipsism is existentially dependent upon something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized and a creature capable of drawing correlations, connections, and/or associations between the two.

One mind is not different things. — creativesoul

Why could the thoughts in one mind not be different things?

Why could the thoughts in one mind not be different things? — Janus

What difference would that make? The thoughts in one mind are not one mind. The claim you're asking about says "One mind is not different things." It does not say the thoughts in one mind are not.

What's the relevance of the question?

What difference would that make? The thoughts in one mind are not one mind. The claim you're asking about says "One mind is not different things." It does not say the thoughts in one mind are not.

What's the relevance of the question? — creativesoul

Just before saying "One mind is not different things." you said:

Solipsism is existentially dependent upon thinking about one's own thought and belief.
Thinking about one's own thought and belief is existentially dependent upon drawing correlations between different things. One mind is not different things. — creativesoul

If ones thoughts about "one's own thought and belief' (or anything else) consist in drawing correlations between different things (i.e. between one's different thoughts and perceptions, assuming for the sake of the solipsist argument that one's perceptions consist in nothing beyond one's feelings, thoughts, and beliefs) then your argument against solipsism fails. Your argument only carries through by assuming what it purports to prove, in other words.

This is not to say that I am convinced by solipsism, rather just that solipsism cannot be rationally disproved (or proved for that matter).

This is not to say that I am convinced by solipsism, rather just solipsism cannot be rationally disproved (or proved for that matter). — Janus

Sure it can.

If we know that solipsism requires metacognition, and metacognition requires cognition, and cognition requires an external world, then we know and have rationally proven that solipsism is false.

Just because there is not a logical(formalized) proof doesn't mean that there is no other kind.

If ones thoughts about "one's own thought and belief' ( or anything else for that matter) consist in drawing correlations between different things (i.e. between one's different thoughts and perceptions, assuming for the sake of the solipsist argument that one's perceptions consist in nothing beyond one's feelings, thoughts, and beliefs) then your argument against solipsism fails. — Janus

This is neglecting the natural evolution of thought and belief, particularly regarding the complexity increase.

1.)All thought and belief is meaningful.
2.)All meaning is existentially dependent upon something to become symbol/sign, something to become symbolized/significant and a creature capable of drawing correlations, connections, and/or associations between the two.
3.)All philosophical positions are existentially dependent upon something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized and a creature capable of drawing correlations, connections, and/or associations between the two. — creativesoul

Thinking about one's own thought and belief is existentially dependent upon language. Language requires shared meaning. Shared meaning requires another mind.

If we know that solipsism requires metacognition, and metacognition requires cognition, and cognition requires an external world, then we know and have rationally proven that solipsism is false. — creativesoul

How do you know that cognition requires an external world (as opposed to, say, merely the idea of an external world)?

This is neglecting the natural evolution of thought and belief, particularly regarding the complexity increase. — creativesoul

I don't know what you are driving at here. 'The natural evolution of thought and belief" and "complexity increase" (if they are assumed to be real independently of your mind) already presupposes an external world; that is it rests on an assumption that it purports to prove.

I don't know what you are driving at here. 'The natural evolution of thought and belief" and "complexity increase" (if they are assumed to be real independently of your mind) already presupposes an external world; that is it rests on an assumption that it purports to prove. — Janus

Follow the argument being given. Neglectful rhetoric doesn't suffice. The questions you ask, if they are sincerely asked, can only be answered by me, since it is of me that you ask...

Read more. Yack less.

Thinking about one's own thought and belief is existentially dependent upon language. Language requires shared meaning. Shared meaning requires another mind. — creativesoul

Again this assumes that the others you share meaning with are not products of your own mind, or for a more universal solipsism, products of the one mind.

Follow the argument being given. Neglectful rhetoric doesn't suffice. The questions you ask, if they are sincerely asked, can only be answered by me, since it is of me that you ask...

Read more. Yack less. — creativesoul

You can't prove that solipsism is false, so as usual you resort to casting aspersions on the one who has shown you to be mistaken.

Of course I agree that solipsism is ridiculous and that no one in their right mind would sincerely believe it to be true, but I also think that no one in their right mind would believe they could prove it to be false.

Thinking about one's own thought and belief is existentially dependent upon language. Language requires shared meaning. Shared meaning requires another mind.
— creativesoul

Again this assumes that the others you share meaning with are not products of your own mind, or for a more universal solipsism, products of the one mind. — Janus

Are you claiming that shared meaning doesn't require a plurality of minds?

You can't prove that solipsism is false, so as usual you resort to casting aspersions on the one who has shown you to be mistaken.

Of course I agree that solipsism is ridiculous and that no one in their right mind would sincerely believe it to be true, but I also think that no one in their right mind would believe they could prove it to be false. — Janus

Well, I'm certainly no angel here... However, you've shown no mistake. I'm more than willing to look at such a showing...

What sort of proof would it take for you?

Knowing what all thought and belief are existentially dependent upon is all it takes. Whether or not one chooses to apply that bit of knowledge is another matter altogether.

Follow the argument being given. Neglectful rhetoric doesn't suffice.

Are you claiming that shared meaning doesn't require a plurality of minds? — creativesoul

Shared meaning requires at least the illusion of a plurality of minds. I'm not claiming that the apparent plurality of minds is an illusion; I tend to think the plurality is real, but i acknowledge it cannot be proven. In fact nothing that is not deductively true can be proven; all inductive and abductive belief is fallible. That doesn't mean I think we have any good reason to doubt that there is a plurality of minds, but that might also depend on the metaphysical context in which we are considering the question. Context is everything.

Follow the argument being given. Neglectful rhetoric doesn't suffice. — creativesoul

I followed the argument perfectly well and showed it to be flawed because it assumes what it purports to prove. You have provided no counter-argument just the usual insulting insinuations. I actually don't know why I continue to bother responding to you.

Shared meaning requires at least the illusion of a plurality of minds. I'm not claiming that the apparent plurality of minds is an illusion; I tend to think the plurality is real, but i acknowledge it cannot be proven. In fact nothing that is not deductively true can be proven; all inductive and abductive belief is fallible. That doesn't mean I think we have any good reason to doubt that there is a plurality of minds, but that might also depend on the metaphysical context in which we are considering the question. Context is everything.

Follow the argument being given. Neglectful rhetoric doesn't suffice.
— creativesoul

I followed the argument perfectly well and showed it to be flawed because it assumes what it purports to prove. You have provided no counter-argument just the usual insulting insinuations. I actually don't know why I continue to bother responding to you. — Janus

Cause it can be fun and informative. Don't act like I'm the only one of us that's a dick sometimes...

An illusion of a plurality of minds is not a plurality of minds. Shared meaning requires a plurality of minds. An illusion of something necessarily presupposes the existence of that something. Otherwise, the term is utterly meaningless... an empty concept.

What sort of proof would qualify as proof for you?

Shared meaning requires another mind.

So your objection is that shared meaning doesn't require a plurality of minds, all it requires is an illusion thereof, and illusions thereof do not require the real thing?

We think there is shared meaning. If there is no real plurality of minds then there is no real shared meaning. We experience an apparent plurality of minds and hence an apparent actuality of shared meaning. Since this is how it seems to us, the fact that we cannot deductively prove it to be so, that, logically speaking it could be that there is really only one mind and that the appearance of shared meaning and a plurality of minds could be just that; an appearance and hence an illusion, gives us no good reason to doubt that there is shared meaning and a plurality of minds.

This is because if there are two logical possibilities, and we have no way of proving which is true, I think we should default to the possibility that seems most plausible in the light of the whole of our experience. but plausibility does not constitute proof.

So, I agree with you that real shared meaning would require a real plurality of minds; but the two are of one piece.They are either both real or both illusory, and we cannot deductively prove which is the case. So in answer to your question as to what would qualify as proof; I will say again; deductively valid reasoning that is grounded on self-evident premises.

Cause it can be fun and informative. Don't act like I'm the only one of us that's a dick sometimes... — creativesoul

I enjoy arguing, to be sure; but I do find it annoying if my arguments are not engaged with directly, and if the interlocutor acts as though they have something to defend rather than wanting to get to the truth at all costs. I am quite prepared to change my mind and have done so several times on these and other forums when presented with arguments that I find to be more convincing than the one I have been convinced by.

When I act like a dick I believe it is not by being evasive or slippery but by being too impatient, too pissed-off and being perhaps too direct and telling the interlocutor just what I think of their tactics if it seems to me that they are evading or ignoring sound arguments. I try always to tell others what I honestly think of their arguments, and I would like others to do the same to me.

It’s not clear to me what you mean by meaning being existentially contingent upon something else. Are you saying that we can only conceive of a thing if that thing actually exists?

I currently accept the fact of an extrrnal world because that is exactly how it seems.

When someone provides a good explanation as to why it seems that way when it isn't then I would be willing to change my mind.

If there is no external world then why does it seem like there is? It would seem to me that, if there is no external world, there is a discrepancy between the way things are and the way things seem to be. Thats a problem for solipsism.

If there was an external, what would it be like to experience it? This is what it feels like, or else why come to the natural, instinctive inclination that there is? If there wasn't what would that be like? Surely there must be some difference that we can point to.

Unless one were to know what things would seem like were there an external world and what things would seem like were there not an external world then how can one infer that there seems to be (or not be) an external world?

"Know" isn't a term I used. Knowledge can be wrong, so "knowing" either way wouldn't be rock-solid. We can still be skeptical of what we "know". You need to explain the nature of "knowing". What does it mean to "know" anything?

Do we really "know" that there is an external world, or is it just instinctive? It seems instinctive to me. Are instincts a kind of knowledge?

It’s not clear to me what you mean by meaning being existentially contingent upon something else. Are you saying that we can only conceive of a thing if that thing actually exists? — Michael

If I've used the qualifier "contingent" in this thread it was inadvertently. I avoid that because I reject modality and severely restrict using possible worlds frameworks. Logical possibility alone isn't enough to warrant belief.

Ancient Aliens...

Existentially dependent is the notion I like. There are a few ways to determine what sorts of things are existentially dependent upon others and how/why...

The application of that knowledge is where the magic happens.

We think there is shared meaning. If there is no real plurality of minds then there is no real shared meaning. — Janus

There can be no illusion of an X if there has never been an X.