See the animal in his cage that you built
Are you sure what side you're on?
Better not look him too closely in the eye
Are you sure what side of the glass you are on?
See the safety of the life you have built
Everything where it belongs
Feel the hollowness inside of your heart
And it's all
Right where it belongs
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection
Is it all you want it to be?
What if you could look right through the cracks?
Would you find yourself
Find yourself afraid to see?
What if all the world's inside of your head
Just creations of your own?
Your devils and your gods
All the living and the dead
And you're really all alone?
You can live in this illusion
You can choose to believe
You keep looking but you can't find the woods
While you're hiding in the trees
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you used to know
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection
Is it all you want it to be?
What if you could look right through the cracks
Would you find yourself
Find yourself afraid to see?
I fail to see how this is unsound though — Darkneos
"Any type of sensory input. ... — Darkneos
Read: something else. Not the "system" itself.Input
noun: input; plural noun: inputs
1.
what is put in, taken in, or operated on by any process or system.
...
Why defer to logical reasoning when it is just a figment of your imagination that can be waived off whenever it disagrees with your whims? — javra
The conclusion fails short. It signifies a level of thought where mind has not yet achieved self-conscousness as the being it is. — Heiko
Why does everyone just think, that, when talking about a-priori there would be wisdom beyond the obvious. — Heiko
Sounds like Puddles Pitty Party - Could that be done on purpose? Seems much more plausible.while we humans often loose sight of this due to a sea of nebulous abstractions — javra
When asking what is necessary for experience to be possible, the answer should not lead to the conclusion, that it is not.Can you elaborate on this? Would like to make sure that I understand you properly. — javra
Could that be done on purpose? Seems much more plausible. — Heiko
When asking what is necessary for experience to be possible, the answer should not lead to the conclusion, that it is not. — Heiko
That's not true though. Because there are others around me I am not alone. I don't think alone, and I hopefully won't die alone. But if solipsism were the case then it would be true. — Darkneos
I can't see why anyone would do it. Willingly choose to be cosmically alone and shut off from any friends or loved ones.
What about the quantum physics that proves it though? — Darkneos
"Things as they are" aren' t much. — Heiko
But how do you compare the fun factor to other what-ifs? — javra
I'm sure better one's can be found, but here's an example: What if extraterrestrials (that they exist is a good what-if for many) teleported the sun out out our galaxy and into another (teleportation is a staple what-if in many a philosophical hypothetical, typically used to gain wisdom (cough) into personal identity issues; I'm here extrapolating), this exactly seven minutes ago such that in one minute's time there won't be any sunlight? In my view, this is a far better roller-coaster ride of what-ifs than is solipsism, which is kind'a bland and boring.
One can even converge the two: the same question posed but with everything now being a projection of the given solipsist.
"In solipsism,only the mind exists[there is only mind] ... the totality of all that you [feel, think, imagine,] and perceive, this includes all of the senses. What are the people around me other than images, sounds, and feelings?" — Darkneos
I heard it said that solipsism can't be refuted because it's logically impeccable, but does that make it true? — Darkneos
Must have been your own choice.Consciousness tells me that I am, and context tells me what I am, but neither of them explains why I am. It would seem that the answer to that question will always be left to either the unknown, or faith, — Partinobodycular
One finger cannot point at itself. — creativesoul
I heard it said that solipsism can't be refuted because it's logically impeccable, but does that make it true?
I heard that a statement can be logically valid but not true and that truth isn't the same as validity? Is that what they mean by solipsism, that it's logically perfect but it can't be known to be true?
I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept. — Darkneos
solipsism is logically flawless.. but it is also uninformative in the strictest sense of the word. — Darkneos
What's wrong with solipsism is the dogmatism attached, there is no reason to accept that there are no other philosophical worlds. — magritte
?Solipsists love other viewpoints — Partinobodycular
"I don't think that solipsism states that nothing exists besides our consciousness, it merely states that we can never know anything about what exists outside our consciousness because we will never experience anything other than our consciousness. which means there is no reason to believe other people are actually other minds, or to believe that the external world's contents will 'continue to exist' when we are not experiencing them. — Darkneos
"I don't think that solipsism states that nothing exists besides our consciousness, it merely states that we can never know anything about what exists outside our consciousness because we will never experience anything other than our consciousness. which means there is no reason to believe other people are actually other minds, or to believe that the external world's contents will 'continue to exist' when we are not experiencing them. — Darkneos
Actually as far as solipsism goes that is pretty much it. I think therefor I am. That's all, there is a reason it's called a dead end. — Darkneos
Solipsists love other viewpoints — Partinobodycular
.
But if you are a convinced solipsist then how can you also allow for incompatible philosophies? — magritte
difference between epistemological solipsism and metaphysical solipsism — Partinobodycular
Again, we need to be clear about the difference between epistemological solipsism and metaphysical solipsism. — Partinobodycular
You [as a first-person point of view] can intend X and not X [at the same time and in the same respect] by simply waving it away as a figment of your mind. — Darkneos
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.