but also uncertain about uncertainty itself — maplestreet

My friend always said to me this is a logical error. Because in a manner of speaking you are using one system to refute itself, much like trying to burn away a flame or cut water with water.

Other people beg to differ, and I feel the same in some ways: https://www.quora.com/Can-we-doubt-doubt-itself

I now interpret contradictory things to have no absolute reference to the way the world functions, but as merely a formal concept that is at best an approximate model of the workings of a very small segment of the world. — maplestreet

What contradictory things gave reference to the functions of the world BEFORE you stopped interperating as so?

Logical conclusions do not correspond to what obtains in the world. So neither do I feel any compelling force from solipsism. — maplestreet

I think this is just like saying "Logical conclusions don't represent the truth about the world therefore there is no reason for me to believe in solipsism anymore".

Is totally valid, but kind of skips the point of beliefs in the first place. Beliefs are held BECAUSE of an incomplete picture of reality/existence. If you suspend judgement then you are agnostic and IMO is the only rational position to hold, IMO, IMO, IMO.

A while ago I took some anticholinergics. — maplestreet

Btw, that shit isn't good for you. Antagonizing choline receptors leads to memory dis-function among other things. Healthy Acetylcholine levels are crucial for concentration, memory and muscle engagement. If you want to explore with altered states, at least be sensible in the pharmacology of it. It is widely known that 5ht2a receptor agonists are the least toxic and least neurologically harmful of psychedelic drugs (and relatively most euphoric), especially natural varieties. Be safe pal and take care of ur brain!

I don't see anything wrong about being uncertain about uncertainty. Keep in mind I don't see anything necessarily wrong with something being self-refuting, either (for the reasons I described in my post). But even if one does not accept that, I don't yet see anything self-refuting about being uncertain about uncertainty.

I think you have a conception of the term 'belief' that many people do not share. I interpret it to mean 'something I accept as true', so use that meaning here.

Perhaps a more clear way of saying what I said earlier is something like this:
Prior to these experiences, I thought that it was accurate to say something does not exist (is not to be found in the world) if it is self-contradictory. I no longer believe that being self-contradictory excludes something from being found in the world.

Yeah, of course regular anticholinergic use is bad. But it is very good for certain types of experiences that cannot easily be replicated by other drugs. It is hard to find a better full blown deliriant. At any rate, I haven't used them for quite some time because I'm aware of the effects of long term use. Also, I would rather not be high for several days from a single dosage, which is a common theme with them.

Perhaps a more clear way of saying what I said earlier is something like this:
Prior to these experiences, I thought that it was accurate to say something does not exist (is not to be found in the world) if it is self-contradictory. I no longer believe that being self-contradictory excludes something from being found in the world. — maplestreet

Ok that makes more sense now. Although don't paradoxes in mathematics and physics point that out quite clearly?

No, I don't think these paradoxes show anything in the world like this. For example, we have never found "the set of all sets that does not contain itself as a set" anywhere out there in the world. Or at least, I certainly haven't perceived it. But I think it certainly is possible to perceive it, just that these paradoxes themselves don't actually point out any of this stuff in the world.

You have an self-defeating argument. If you dont feel the force of a logical conclusion, then I dont understand why it removes the compelling force from solipsism. Because your conclusion that solipsism has no compelling force since logic is not compelling, is itself a logical conclusion and therefore you infact DO feel the force of logical conclusions.

That's great, but I think the real question is whether you're going to become a League of Legends pro again.

Comments:

* Solipsism as a logical conclusion is hilarious.

* I'd say that there's a difference between hallucinations and perceptions. (So that it wouldn't be the case that you had "a perception that you didn't perceive.")

* Also, I've never had a hallucination that had the same quality to it that a perception has. I've certainly had hallucincations (I'm a Dead fan, after all).

* Taking drug-induced hallucinations to be grounds for a major shift in one's ontological stance doesn't seem that far afield from solipsism to me, really.

You did not experience a contradiction.

The way you perceived a song wandering around with a mustache was by seeing. You did not at the same time actually not see the song wandering around with a mustache. You understood that it wasn't the case, and hence you perceived it not being the case, but saying you perceived something you did not perceive is then totally possible, as long as you perceived something in another sense than the sense in which you did not perceive it. If it was the case that when shifting focus from the mustache-bearing song, you did not see it, then that's further evidence suggesting you did not see something which you didn't see at the same time.

Since you did not experience a contradiction, you have not shown in any way that it is possible for a logical contradiction to be anything but impossible.