This is hopeless. — Copernicus

Yep.

Agnostics are skeptical about God; Solipsists are skeptical about Reality.

No accepting, no denying. Just skeptical. — Copernicus

What is your proof for objective reality, @Banno?

What sort of proof could make sense? What could be clearer to you than that you are reading this now? The doubt you pretend to is unjustified.

let's not talk about me. Since you made solipsism central to this dispute, let's clear out what your primary objection against it is.

You brought up solipsism, claimed it for yourself.

I've shown the problem with solipsism, over the last few pages. Your asking me a question shows that you are not a solipsist. You want my answer. Therefore I exist... :wink:

solipsists don't deny objective reality. They are skeptical because of lack of proof.

So, assuming I'm believing in objective reality, what is your problem with the OP proposition?

You want my answer. Therefore I exist — Banno

You exist at least in my head. Therefore I want to debate.

Just because I might be the only real thing in the universe doesn't mean I'll have to die in mental solitary.

I daydream all day or imagine fictional stories (either to write books or movie scripts, or just to entertain myself while living in my basement as a societal hermit). Just because I'm societally reclusive doesn't mean I'll have to be a lifeless monolith in flesh.

Only what I'm saying isn't yours. It comes from outside your head. Surprise, novelty.

comes from outside your head — Banno

Yes. But received and processed by my head. I can't bypass that.

Sure. But not made by your head.

Then there is error. If everything is in your mind, how can you make sense of being mistaken? You are mistaken when what you take to be the case is not actually the case; if solipsism is true then what you take to be the case just is the case.

But not made by your head — Banno

It is. I can't function without my brain. So my brain gives me the reality. And since the brain is an element of the universe, it's the universe blurring my vision from itself.

If everything is in your mind, how can you make sense of being mistaken? — Banno

I never sense true or false. I'm only skeptical.

I can't function without my brain — Copernicus

So you have a brain. The mess gets bigger. Then, a universe, to blur your vision. So are we happy now that there is more than is "inside your head"? Can you begin to see that your doubt is unjustified?

I never sense true or false. — Copernicus

Never? Is that true?

A performative contradiction occurs when the act of making a statement contradicts that statement. Like "I am dead" - the saying of it renders it false.

Or "I never sense true or false".

are we happy now that there is more than is "inside your head"? — Banno

Now I see the problem. You had an idea of a solipsistic school of thought, which says your mind is a divine entity, if you will, that created the whole universe, your body, your thoughts, and everything, and you're a formless abstract entity in no-one-knows-where land. That's not what I follow. What I advocate for is that there is no way to know anything outside what our brains construct for us. And even if there was an objective reality (not necessarily the universe itself, but the "truths" in it) out there, it's impossible to know outside our subjective experiences.

Never? Is that true? — Banno

That's the idea. I'm skeptical.

And even if there was an objective reality (not necessarily the universe itself, but the "truths" in it) out there, it's impossible to know outside our subjective experiences. — Copernicus

There are sounds outside our hearing range, or lights outside our visual capacity. If we hadn't advanced in science, we would never know they existed.

Right now, there could be elements billion times faster than light, but even our scientific observations are too rudimentary to detect them.

The same thing applies to the mind. Not everything is received or detected. So the whole picture is never captured. That's the bottom line.

What I advocate for is that there is no way to know anything outside what our brains construct for us. — Copernicus

So you constructed me? You poor thing.

So you constructed me? — Banno

In the same way I constructed the image of the screen in my head after receiving the lights through my vision.

Your true version is unknowable to me. I only know what my brain allows me to.

No offense, but basic solipsism is pretty much an undisputed thing unless one lacks common sense.

You are not seeing the contradiction in which you choose to live.

Oh well.

I see no contradiction.

indeed.

Philosophy has long divided human action into the “selfish” and the “selfless.”
Yet such a distinction may be more linguistic than real. Every deliberate human act is born from an internal desire — whether that desire seeks pleasure, avoids pain, fulfills duty, or maintains identity. — Copernicus

Philosophy didn't create the distinction you're referencing. . You're attempting to use philosophy to eliminate a distinction.

If all acts are selfish in all possible worlds, you've created a definitional truth, which means you needn't go through an empirical analysis of various acts to determine which are selfish and which aren't. You've just created a tautology.

The point here is that we call acts from empathy selfish and those that result in gain but injure others selfish. The terms mean very different things. If you have arrived at a definition that collapses the distinction, you've not arrived at a new profound truth (i.e. that there is personal benefit in kindness to others so such kindness is selfush), but instead you've just mis-defined a term.

Everyone knows there can be personal benefit when you benefit others. That doesn't make it selfish.

Neuroscience has shown that our emotional and instinctive systems start the process of action before we even realize it. — Copernicus

I think it's more complex than that; it depends upon what action we're talking about.
And I think you'd likely agree that the subsconscious mind is also part of the person, so I think you're agreeing with me, but coming at it from a slightly different angle.
My position was that our "wiring" is such that we can go into a state where we appreciate that we are responsible for this important, fragile thing, and moment to moment we are not doing a cost/benefit analysis; there's no time for that.
You're suggesting we are internally motivated by our mind seeking particular activation for certain actions: yeah, I'd say those things are alternative descriptions of the same set of phenomena.

If a truly selfless act must have no internal motive at all, then it wouldn’t really be an act of will — it would just be something mechanical, like a leaf falling from a tree. — Copernicus

Agreed. It's also interesting that you throw in the concept of will here, because my main objection to the OP is the same as for the free will debate. But I'll avoid the temptation to tangent into it completely.

To call an act “selfless” just because the person wasn’t aware of its benefit is to confuse consciousness with motivation. Every voluntary act comes from within: from emotion, instinct, or belief — all of which exist because they help the self endure. — Copernicus

I was agreeing with you right to the end :)
Firstly, I don't think we should take the structure of the word that literally; I don't think it's understood as meaning literally absent the self. If a kind person does a kind action, and someone calls it "selfless", we're not saying it appeared from nowhere (which would make it as worthy of praise as being struck by lightning).

And secondly, no, I don't think all voluntary acts necessarily exist for helping the self endure.
Social species have group selection pressures, so there will be some behaviours that are not optimal or even to the detriment of the self. Plus just genetic drift will mean humans are likely saddled with some arbitrary proclivities.

And heck, a mother caring for her child is to the detriment of the self. Hear me out.
I know that parental love is such a strong thing, and a familiar thing to us all. And that all organisms prioritize reproducing above all else. So we casually consider reproducing and caring for the next generation to be aiding the self. And that we "live on".
But the next generation isn't the self.
Those behaviours evolved for the genes' benefit, not mine.
Again, we might not mind at all, because we get the benefit of feeling good about ourselves later. That doesn't make it the reason we behaved that way though.

Everyone knows there can be personal benefit when you benefit others. That doesn't make it selfish. — Hanover

But it is, nevertheless, self-serving. Specifically when you do such with said knowledge (or intent) beforehand. His point is, we're somewhat "trapped" in the dynamic that everything we do is expected to have positive benefit, even things we must do or otherwise have no choice but to do.

He does have a point when he suggests "every action is out of desire", even a mental invalid who chooses to harm himself or paint his driveway a certain color and then attempt to vacuum it. Sure, in that case, while such actions have no utility or tangible benefit, they do "benefit" the person by expressing or fulfilling such a desire, misguided and whatnot as it is.

Though, some people choose self-denial or "avoidance of desire" or pleasure or what have you. He says people who do this are still doing it for a sort of tangible benefit even if that benefit is to "challenge" one's self or live a better, purer, or otherwise specific sort of life.

I responded saying, sure, most people do that, even 99%, but that doesn't mean every single person who ever existed, including people not alive or who OP would otherwise never meet necessarily fell under that wide assessment of mindset he assumes every person must subscribe or live under.

In a way, you could frame the OP as a simple critique of the modern mammalian brain. We don't do anything unless it (seems) to offer benefit, and even when it doesn't, the act of trying and failing versus not trying at all, seems to self-validate, at least in the context or argument the OP is suggesting.

If all acts are selfish in all possible worlds, you've created a definitional truth, which means you needn't go through an empirical analysis of various acts to determine which are selfish and which aren't. You've just created a tautology. — Hanover

Perhaps we'd need to redefine the word.

sounds like you agree with me, with some extra steps.

In a way, you could frame the OP as a simple critique of the modern mammalian brain. — Outlander

No, that would still suggest the OP said something about the world, which it doesn't. It just asserts an incorrect definition.

Give me a hypothetical example of a selfless act. That you can't clarifies you're saying nothing about the world. If nothing qualifies due to logical impossibility, you're saying nothing about the world.

The best example might be that I trip over a carpet and accidentally fall on a guy and stop him from shooting an innocent guy I didn't care about. That is, unintentional accidents might qualify under this strained definition, but no one uses the term selfless to describe unintentional accidents.

Sweet.

Perhaps we'd need to redefine the word. — Copernicus

We have a perfectly useful word. Acts from kindness are referred to as "selfless," and it is not a prerequisite that an act to be moral that it not offer any benefit to the one who does it.

If you need a word to describe an act that offers no benefit to an actor, maybe "unintentional", "accident", or "mistake" will work.

Selfishness=Self-Interest=Self-Serving

My definition.

Other parties (their gain or loss or neutral outcome) are never my driving force for action.

No, that would still suggest the OP said something about the world, which it doesn't. — Hanover

I mean, the first sentence in the OP references "human", which, to my knowledge is a direct reference to a physical being that exists in, you guessed it, the world. But hey, you're the professional, I'll take your word for it. Just seems you've left ample room to argue is all.

Give me a hypothetical example of a selfless act. That you can't clarifies you're saying nothing about the world. If nothing qualifies due to logical impossibility, you're saying nothing about the world. — Hanover

Leaving a hundred dollar bill under a rock on the sidewalk, maybe? You'll never gain any benefit from it. Who knows, it might go to some drug addict. Or, someone really down on their luck who needed just that amount to make rent or cover this month's bills might pick it up instead. You'll never know. But fancy this. Imagine the person is a psychopath or sociopath, whichever one doesn't feel empathy or "happiness" like a normal person feels when helping someone in need. That would, technically be selfless, no? Random, if nothing else seeing as it would be unlikely in that prescribed scenario such an act would occur.

I get your point and like your rug example. Very poignant and succinct.