So, there can be no illusion of a soul if there has never been a soul?

Exactly.

...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. — Janus

And exactly what premisses would you not say were assuming an external world?

I find that there is a significant difference between assuming an external world and being existentially dependent upon one.

That's a remarkable difference.

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

Unicorn? :razz:

So there must be a soul. What is a soul?

Doesn't follow.

Is there an argument or objection in there somewhere? What of a unicorn?

Doesn't follow. — creativesoul

What do you mean "doesn't follow"? It follows according to your own argument:

I said,

So, there can be no illusion of a soul if there has never been a soul? — Janus

You replied,

Exactly. — creativesoul

Which means according to your own argument that since there has most certainly been the illusion of a soul, then there must be a soul. So, I asked you to tell me what a soul is.

The same argument could be applied to the self, God, free will and so on. Since there has undoubtedly been the illusion of all these things, then they must be real according to your argument. For another example, what about ghosts?

An illusion of a unicorn can only exist if it did actually exist?

What is an illusion?

Illusion involves the will to there being something

It seems that two out of three you're preaching to the choir here.

Edit: Although, having thought about it a bit more, I'm not so sure the unicorn is a good counterexample. Has there been the illusion of a unicorn as opposed to the mere imagining of a unicorn. Also a unicorn is an imaginary creature which is a composite of features of real creatures ( the Narhwal and the horse). This does not seem to be the case with the other examples: the soul, the self, God, free will, and ghosts.

Stop hand waving and show the argument.

What is an illusion? — Blue Lux

It's not what it is an illusion of.... Hence... there can be no illusion of X if there has never been an X.

Which means according to your own argument that since there has most certainly been the illusion of a soul... — Janus

I've never argued that.

If there is such thing as an illusion of an external world, then there is an external world.

Exactly??? :roll:

Exactly, What's the problem?

Show the argument, I just did.

Let me help you...

There is no such thing as an illusion of the soul.

Not if there really is a soul. But plenty of people have believed that it is self-evident there is a soul. Those people were under the illusion that there is a soul if there is not a soul, but of course not if there is; which is the obverse of what you have been arguing.

False belief doesn't equate to illusion...

Of course they do. Even solipsism explains unpleasurable events as "caused by certain parts of your mind you do not have access to" which would pass for an external world. The only difference is that different philosophical positions claim that the external world is made of different things for example materials, minds, parts of mind you don't have access to, etc and THAT is where most people disagree

Right, so the illusion of an external world (in case there wasn't one) would not be a false belief that there is an external world? Rrigghhtt.....I think I've got ya now..... :rofl: :roll:

Right. An illusion of a dog is impossible without a dog. That is because an illusion of something is what it is as a result of it's resemblance to that which it is an illusion of. If there is no thing there can be no illusion of that thing.

One can believe that there is a dog when there is only an illusion of a dog. That belief would be false, but the belief itself is not the illusion.

Is this really that difficult for you to grasp?

This is semantic.

This is semantic. — Blue Lux

That is rhetoric.

This is question-begging nonsense. I could have an hallucination of something I have never seen before, for example. You are assuming that the world, including of course dogs, is not itself an illusion, in the sense of being somehow fabricated; by the evil demon or the mad scientist who has you as a brain in a vat, or whatever.

You just don't want to admit that you cannot deductively prove that there is an external world. Of course I think we should believe that there is, but that is not the point.

There is no such thing as an illusion of the soul. — creativesoul

And presumably there's no such thing as an illusion of a ghost? Yet people claim to have seen and believe in ghosts. So at the very least you must accept that believing in something and believing to have seen something is not the same thing as there being the illusion of that thing.

In which case the simple response is that there isn't an external world and so isn't the illusion of an external world, even though people believe in and believe to see an external world.

The external world is a ghost.

The external world is a ghost. — Michael

Or a goat...

This is question-begging nonsense. I could have an hallucination of something I have never seen before, for example. You are assuming that the world, including of course dogs, is not itself an illusion, in the sense of being somehow fabricated; by the evil demon or the mad scientist who has you as a brain in a vat, or whatever.

You just don't want to admit that you cannot deductively prove that there is an external world. Of course I think we should believe that there is, but that is not the point. — Janus

It's neither nonsense nor affirming the consequent. Gratuitous assertions are what rhetoric is. That's not good enough by my lights.

It makes no sense to say that I am assuming that the world is not an illusion.

If it is the case that all thought and belief are existentially dependent upon a plurality, and a plurality negates solipsism, then solipsism is negated by the way things are... which is the way it should be.

If it is the case that solipsism is a philosophical position, and all philosophical positions are existentially dependent upon thought and belief, and all thought and belief is existentially dependent upon an external world, then it is the case that solipsism is existentially dependent upon an external world.

Which argument would you like to discuss? Point out the premiss and offer a relevant and valid objection...

A solipsist is the one who's assuming that there is no external world.

The culprit - once again - is a piss poor (mis)conception of thought and belief(and thus of mind).