I suppose sensation is being as opposed to not being. Without sensation, there is nothing, which is inconceivable to the conscious mind. Stop moving completely for a moment, stop thinking, do not attempt to rationalize anything and just be still. Your state of being at that time will be the only thing in existence from your perspective, to assume that anything else is existing will require faith. I guess I can't give you a concrete answer because you are still presupposing that you are experiencing a "thing." Why does this have to be so? When you tear down the labels and rationalizations behind everything you'll find there is no longer any point of reference, and no coherency. You are left with nothing but the sensation of your own isolated perception, with no clear source or meaning in sight.
When you tear down the labels and rationalizations behind everything you'll find there is no longer any point of reference, and no coherency. You are left with nothing but the sensation of your own isolated perception, with no clear source or meaning in sight.
some say it's the default position and that the solipsist doesn't need evidence but the realist does. — Darkneos
I'm just looking for help. The prospect of being cosmically alone is really depressing. — Darkneos
Nobody is cosmically alone. It is an impossibility. You cannot exist without the information surrounding you. The information surrounding you includes your friends, family, community, etc. Whilst you comprehend this information in your mind, it is real information from real sources - your peers, and a real physical world. Consciousness can not exist in the absence of integrated information, In my opinion, so external information is vital for consciousness. This means connection to externalities, without which everything would be ineffable. So don't worry, you are not cosmically alone, and can not possibly be. — Pop
I'm pretty sure that the reply I heard to this stance on the matter is that such a stance is not "known" it is a leap of faith to assume others and an external world. — Darkneos
It doesn't make them real or existent. As my quote from the thread I read says, we presuppose that this information comes from a source or that we are experiencing some "thing". — Darkneos
When people talk about philosophical stuff, each person comes in with a collection of assumptions — darthbarracuda
No, but you can prove it's moot, that it makes no essential difference.I suppose in the background I also do not think one can prove that solipsism is not the case. — Coben
It's a bit more than that. Solipsism is the belief that you are the only thing that exists and that everything else is a piece of YOUR mind. It is a form of "all is mind" but moreover it is "all is one mind, mine" — khaled
I think if there is only my mind, it would make a difference to me. And I think it makes a difference to him.But I'll read your proof when you get to it for him.No, but you can prove it's moot, that it makes no essential difference. — Olivier5
Though you are just asserting this here.Another way to solve the equation is to realize that indeed we do live in a simulation of sorts, but not the kind where one is all alone in an absurd universe: we ALL (you, darkneos and me) live in our mental landscapes, constructed from sensory inputs translated into qualia. The color red, or the music of your favorite band doesn't actually exist 'out there', it's a view of the mind. What seems to exist are air presure waves and quanta of light and stuff. And yet we can all enjoy music and share meaningfully about it; we can all enjoy a sunset and call the attention of others to its splending colors. So this simulation that our brain does based on sensory data is a pretty good one, as far as simulations go. It's both effective, beautiful, and most probably universal (by which I mean your qualia for red is by and large the same as my qualia for red — Olivier5
This is the one that maintained solipsism as the default and that realism is the one that needs to meet the burden of proof. — Darkneos
Contrary to your assertion, I don't think anyone believes solipsism is true. It's a hypothetical viewpoint, and it teaches us something.Solipsism has been a wound on my mind, mostly because it's unproveable and unrefutable. Some people say it's true, some believe it, some say it's the default position and that the solipsist doesn't need evidence but the realist does. I'm not sure who to believe to be honest and I'm rather weak on this matter. — Darkneos
Maybe what you need is not a philosopher, but a psychiatrist or doctor. If you are literally, rather than figuratively depressed, you may have some physical or chemical glitch in the brain. If so, that can be treated with a prescription. Solipsism syndrome may be a form of pathological doubt. And the inherent uncertainty of philosophy could make it worse. :nerd:I'm just looking for help. The prospect of being cosmically alone is really depressing. — Darkneos
I will begin by saying that by any standard of proof, the onus is on an opponent of solipsism to prove solipsism is false. That is because solipsism is the default stance. You exist, and that is all you can be sure of. Basic Descartes which has not been shown to be false. The best argument against Cogito is that 'maybe you only think you exist' but this argument can never get off the ground since this already implies the Cogito. (How can you think something without existing?)
Now,
IT is important to define the different notions of solipsism.
First there is the notion that all that exists is your mind. This might encompass an experience.
If if encompasses an experience then nothing disproves solipsism. Your feeling something bump is just a sensation of yours, as is your sensation of being in control of things when you are. All that exists are the sensations, and they are what comprise your mind.
Mind might encompass experience plus action If it encompasses action then there must be something that you have action over. Therefor either you have action over all things or else you have action over some thing, IN WHICH case there exist multiple things.
Now solipsism can still hold true if you think the self has action over some of its 'body'. IF you think that the self is comprised of a body and a mind, then solipsism is still defualt, because quite simply, the things you experience, the 'people' you have relationships with are just part of your body, part that you do not have control over.
To deny solipsism in this sense is to say that other people have consicous minds, but this is not proven and in fact we have no way of proving this. We take it by faith.
If the self is considered to have control over all of itself, then solipsism is clearly FALSE because we do not have control of everything.
So the senses that solipsism is not disproven are:
All that exists is your experience, including your experience of control and of being affected by things that you percieve as 'other'.
Or
All that exists is your mind and your body. You have control over some aspects of the body, and not others. The body supplies your mind with sensations. The crucial point is that no other minds exist.
A sense that solipsism IS disproven is:
All that exists is you (either body+mind or just mind), and you have control over every aspect of yourself. This is not true because we simply dont have control over everything.
Solipsism is a most potent idea in the context of philosophy of MIND. Does your consciousness exist in a world with other consciousnesses or is it just your consciousness?
Since each consciousness only has access to its own consciousness, it has no way of proving that any other consciousness exists. Therefor the default stance is SOLIPSISM. Nevertheless this is hard to accept because we see other 'peope' who seem to behave just like us, therefor we infer INDUCTIVELY that other consciousness probably exists, unproven.
Nonetheless however, should one cease to find faith in either resolution, solipsism gifts you with a number of meaningful comforts. If the existence of your mind is all that can be known, then contemplate this: the entirety of the universe, its most dazzling recesses, the very nature and history of man and all its discoveries - in short, the complete and exhilarating narrative that has complemented your consciousness thus far, is a consequence of your own imagination.
How reassuring an eventuality is that? — Aryamoy Mitra
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.