Therefore, there needs to be a flag or property in the world which contains the information needed to tell which perspective my life becomes. — bizso09

You are your own flag/property. As to those that are external to you and public, indeed they are shared by everyone. If you mean that only you have the view of the world that is yours, i agree. It appears to me you've turned the idea of perception somewhat inside-out.

However, from another person’s point of view, this flag points to them, not me. This is impossible, since this is a universal flag. Hence, I am the only perspective there is. — bizso09

I don't see how any of this follows. If you are observer nr. 587, there might be a flag nr. 587 attached to the things that you experience. Another person might experience the things with flag nr. 935 etc.

If we assume, each person has their own world, with their own flags that points to them, then there needs to be another flag outside of this, which tells which world I will be in for the life I’m living now. — bizso09

You're assuming that there is some kind of "you" that is then assigned a perspective by being assigned a flag number. This doesn't make much sense since the "you" would have zero content associated with it. So instead of you being "assigned" a flag, you are what results from a bunch of "things" having the same flag.

Where is the flaw? — bizso09

Only thing I see wrong...

...is the reasoning.

there needs to be a flag or property in the world which contains the information needed to tell which perspective my life becomes

You may be making some conceptual mistakes, but then again there might be something buried deep in what you are saying. If I try to generate something resembling a deductively valid argument from what you are saying, the first draft I get is:

1. Any experience can be truly described as "mine" by whoever is having it.
2. Where something can be described truly by the use of a word, that thing instantiates a property singled out by that word.
3. Therefore all experiences instantiate the property of being mine.
4. Mineness is one and the same property wherever it is instantiated.
5. Instantiations of one property can present no distinct aspects from one another, otherwise they are not instantiations of the same property.
6. One aspect of mineness is that it relates an experience to a subject of experience.
7. So, if two instantiations of mineness could relate experiences to two different subjects of experience, then those instances of mineness would have different aspects.
8. So, if two instantiations of mineness related an experience to different subjects of experience, those instantiations of mineness would be instatiations of distinct properties.
9. So, since it would contradict 4, two instantiations of mineness cannot relate experiences to two different subjects of experience.
10. Therefore, all instances of mineness relate an experience to one and the same subject.
11. A subject of experience cannot exist without having experiences. Therefore there is only one subject of experience.

If this is what you are getting at then premise 2 requires a lot of supporting argument. After all, all places can be identified by the person at them as being "here", but that doesn't entail that hereness is a feature of places. Even if you got past that hurdle, there would still be premise 4 to establish. Why couldn't "mineness" be a determinable property with many different determinations, like, for example, colour.

If this is what you are getting at then premise 2 requires a lot of supporting argument. — jkg20

Why is "mine" a thing in the world? Because I can tell the difference between my perspective and yours. Right now, I'm Joe, I am not Jean or Micheal. "Mine" is the information which tells me who I am. It is the point of view.

For example, imagine you're watching a movie. The perspective would be the camera. The camera is not a thing in the movie, but in reality, the camera is part of the world, because there's nothing outside the world.

If you mean that only you have the view of the world that is yours, i agree. — tim wood

If Jimmy has their view of the world, and Mike has their view of the world, then how do I tell if I am Jimmy or Mike? You might say I know who I am, but actually I don't unless the "mineness" is stored somewhere.

For example, in a video game, you pick a character to play. Your selection is stored. When you read a book, the narrator's point of view is stored in the way the story is written.

If you are observer nr. 587, there might be a flag nr. 587 attached to the things that you experience. Another person might experience the things with flag nr. 935 etc. — Echarmion

How do I know I'm observer nr 587, and not nr 935? Where does that information come from?

This doesn't make much sense since the "you" would have zero content associated with it. — Echarmion

You are right that "you" has zero content, but actually "you" encodes the "angle of observation" or the "point of view". So it does have something.

Because I can tell the difference between my perspective and yours

But you are arguing for a position that there are not two such perspectives, aren't you?
It seems incoherent to support a premise of an argument that leads to the conclusion that there are not two perspectives, the very premise that there are two perspectives.

I'm reminded of an anecdote, I think of Bertrand Russell's, where he was talking about a letter he received from an amateur philosopher that began something like
"Dear Mr Russell
Solipsism appears to me to be so self evidently true that I do not understand why everyone does not believe it"

This seems tautologous because it can't be falsified so I suspect it may be a proof without meaning.

But you are arguing for a position that there are not two such perspectives, aren't you? — jkg20

Sorry, you are right. I'm saying we have two subjective experiences (not perspectives), so the single perspective tells me which one is going to be mine. In my original argument, perspective is the flag

The reason this exists, is because I can unequivocally tell the difference between my subjective experiences vs yours.
If you also had a perspective, then again we would have to have a "super-perspective" to tell which one will be mine. This would need to progress to an infinite regress.
These perspectives are things in the world, because by definition the world includes everything there is.
If in the infinite regress, we will have multiple perspectives, then I should be able to view the world from both you and I. This is not the case at the moment, so this is false.
If in the infinite regress there are no perspectives, then that means right now I would not be here. This is again false, because I am here.
Hence, the only solution is that all perspectives will converge to a single perspective, which is mine.
A crucial bit of the argument is that fact I am here. I cannot prove this to anybody else, but it's a reasonable assumption to make. This basically says that "first person perspective" exists.

This seems tautologous because it can't be falsified so I suspect it may be a proof without meaning. — Zophie

This can be falsified because you can derive the same argument from your point of view, and it will lead to a contradiction with mine.

How do I know I'm observer nr 587, and not nr 935? Where does that information come from? — bizso09

There is no such thing as "you" to which the category of "knowing" could apply in this scenario. Either the universe has some property which creates your specific perspective, thereby creating you, or it doesn't. You aren't assigned a perspective, you are a perspective.

You are right that "you" has zero content, but actually "you" encodes the "angle of observation" or the "point of view". So it does have something. — bizso09

I don't think that's logically necessary. There doesn't need to be some intermediary "you", like a homunculus in front of a screen that is then assigned a "channel". Perspectives might just be as naturally part of the "topography" of the universe as is everything else.

I'm saying we have two subjective experiences

Not sure how this gets around the problem. Remember you are trying to prove the premise of your argument, or at least my version of your argument, that mineness is a genuine feature of things in the world. Your argument that it must be is now that without mineness you could not distinguish between a subjective experience which is yours and a subjective experience which is not yours. But if there is only one subject of experience, which is what you are saying your argument proves, then there is no such distinction to make, so you cannot rest an argument for the existence of mineness on that distiction.

For example, imagine you're watching a movie. The perspective would be the camera.

This is a peculiar use of language. A camera might be placed to give a specific perspective on a scene, but that does not entail that the camera is a perspective. If you are trying to illuminate a special techical sense of "perspective" by way of the analogy of a film camera, then I think you are digging your own grave: you can have several cameras recording a single scene in a film from a number of different perspectives. This would seem to imply, contrary to what you want to prove, that the idea of there being multiple perspectives makes perfect sense.

There is no such thing as "you" to which the category of "knowing" could apply in this scenario — Echarmion

yes there is. The universe can be completely identical in every way, except for the "you". Let's assume you know the following: A, B and C exist. In scenario 1, you are A, in scenario 2, you are B, in scenario 3, you do not exist. Between the three scenarios, there's absolutely no difference in the world, apart from the "you". The person you are now, could think, act, live and experience the world exactly the same way with or without "you" being there to observe it. Or look at your friend, they think, act, live and experience the world, but "you" do not observe any of that. Why is it that when you say "I" you mean person A and not person C. If you were to ask person A and C if they are them, they will both say yes. But only "you" know which one of them is indeed you, because the "you" is assigned to person A. The first person perspective goes with A, not C.

But if there is only one subject of experience — jkg20

There can be multiple subjective experiences, what I'm claiming is that there is a single "first person point of view". It is impossible to observe the world through a neutral point of view, like a scientist looking at a closed experiment from outside of that system. There is nothing outside of the world, therefore, the observer is always part of the world being observed. The angle of the first person observer has to be encoded somewhere. If you are the scientist looking at a box of mice, then you are one of the mice, but you gotta know which one.

A camera might be placed to give a specific perspective on a scene, — jkg20

In the analogy, the perspective is from the viewer who watches the movie. Whichever camera is shown on screen, has the "first person point of view". Likewise, in the book analogy, the perspective comes from the narrator.

Therefore, there needs to be a flag or property in the world which contains the information needed to tell which perspective my life becomes. In particular, who is me. However, from another person’s point of view, this flag points to them, not me. This is impossible, since this is a universal flag. Hence, I am the only perspective there is. — bizso09

There is an element which is the same in all observers, that element being bare awareness. But as soon as that bare awareness is differentiated, which occurs by virtue of the fact that no two observers can occupy the same place at the same time, nor have the same past and therefore the same memories, then bare awareness assumes individuality. So what you're referring to as 'a flag' is not universal, as it is different for every observer. What is the same in all individuals can't even be a matter of comment, as it is indistinguishable.

Proof that I am the only observer in the world

Yeah, you're right. Damn, he's on to us.

I'm sorry, but there's no way to refute Solipsism. However, I think merely through intuition we can see that it's false. For example, you are a human being. I am also a human being. By analogy, if you experience the world, it seems like I would the same because I share the same essence/universal as you do.

It's not a refutation, it's an inference to the best explanation. Now, if you're opting for Ockham's Razor, I think Solipsism is better than multiple consciousnesses. However, if that's the case, then the idea that's there is only consciousness itself, that is my view, Idealistic Monism, would be more parsimonious.

I dunno. Debate which sounds best.

Where is the flaw? — bizso09

There is no flaw; I am entirely convinced. ;)

The universe can be completely identical in every way, except for the "you". — bizso09

Only if the "you" isn't part of the universe. But then the perspective of "you" might not be part of the universe either, and your argument doesn't work.

If we assume that there is an "objective universe" that exists irrespective of any perspective, then "you" must also be in some way part of that. "You" must come from somewhere, and so at some point "you" must make a difference. You wouldn't say, for example, that a universe with cats is completely identical in every way to one without cats.

Let's assume you know the following: A, B and C exist. In scenario 1, you are A, in scenario 2, you are B, in scenario 3, you do not exist. Between the three scenarios, there's absolutely no difference in the world, apart from the "you". — bizso09

But the "you" is a difference. The world where I am A is different from the world where I am B.

The person you are now, could think, act, live and experience the world exactly the same way with or without "you" being there to observe it. — bizso09

That sounds like nonsense. Without me, there wouldn't be a person, there would be no experience, and while there would still be a world in some sense, it would not be the world I experience. There isn't a way in which someone else could have my perspective. My perspective is an integral part of me. It's fundamentally who I am.

Or look at your friend, they think, act, live and experience the world, but "you" do not observe any of that. — bizso09

They experience their world, not the world. There is a difference between the subjective world a person experiences and the objective world that logically precedes any subjective experience.

Why is it that when you say "I" you mean person A and not person C. — bizso09

Because that's what the word means?

If you were to ask person A and C if they are them, they will both say yes. But only "you" know which one of them is indeed you, because the "you" is assigned to person A. The first person perspective goes with A, not C. — bizso09

But obviously even though both A and C use the same word ("me"), they each refer to their own individual selves, which are different. If I know the people in question, or can see or hear them, I can figure that out myself. On the other hand, you have no way of knowing whether I am just a single person replying to you or some kind of committee.

Really, this is all about language. I don't see the relevance to your initial post.

Only if the "you" isn't part of the universe — Echarmion

The "you" must be part of the universe, because the universe includes everything

If we assume that there is an "objective universe" that exists irrespective of any perspective, then "you" must also be in some way part of that — Echarmion

Agree.

The world where I am A is different from the world where I am B. — Echarmion

Exactly.

Without me, there wouldn't be a person, there would be no experience, and while there would still be a world in some sense, — Echarmion

By person, do you mean the limbs, the body, the thought, the mind or the perspective? When you build up a person step by step, at one point you gotta add the "you".

My perspective is an integral part of me. It's fundamentally who I am. — Echarmion

Agree.

They experience their world, not the world. — Echarmion

Everyone experiences their own world, but there is still a single "The world" out there, because there is one everything.

Because that's what the word means? — Echarmion

Yes, but it refers to two different entities.

On the other hand, you have no way of knowing whether I am just a single person replying to you or some kind of committee. — Echarmion

Correct. The only thing I know is that right now I'm person X writing this post, and the first perspective resides in me.

I'm sorry, but there's no way to refute Solipsism. — h060tu

I'm trying to prove it here objectively, without resorting to assumptions.

By person, do you mean the limbs, the body, the thought, the mind or the perspective? When you build up a person step by step, at one point you gotta add the "you". — bizso09

I mean the mind. I don't see how this is a step by step process (or how we'd know it to be one). The "you" is part of an interconnected whole, not some kind of soul you add later.

Since he apparently is directing his question to himself...

...I wonder why he does not have an answer?

A curious observation...

But then, you can't make observations, so...?

The contradiction in your argument comes from the fact that you regard the world as a collection of distinct entities, and while doing so, you assume the viewpoint of an outsider observer.

You say A is A, B is B, C is C, it's all self evident, they are part of the topology of the universe, they are their own flags. But this is incomplete because the world does not just consist of A, B and C but also an additional observer that is making the statement about A, B and C. You cannot ignore the observer.

Fundamentally, things must exist in relation to a specific reference point or observer. They cannot exist without a reference point. When something exists, it must exist in relation to something. That something is called "the first person perspective". This must be unique because there is a single way for things to either exist or not exist.

When you mistakenly introduce other perspectives, then again you talk about a collection of entities, so those entities must again exist in relation to some reference point. Basically, when I say there is a reference point, I'm making the statement that "things exist". These two statements are equivalent.

If you try to derive this argument from your perspective, you will arrive at the conclusion that that reference point for things to exist is in fact "your reference point". Every person can do this. However, we've seen that there is only one such reference point. Hence, there is a contradiction, because you cannot have multiple worlds out there with multiple reference points, when there is a single way for everything to exist or not. It's a binary choice.

The reason the reference point resides in me, is because I know I exist here and I observe. I do not observe the world through the sky, or space or ether or some other person's or animal's point of view. So I know for sure that there is at least one reference point. And since there cannot be other reference points, I know that mine is the one. The alternative is that there is a fundamental paradox in the universe that cannot be explained with reasoning.

The contradiction in your argument comes from the fact that you regard the world as a collection of distinct entities, and while doing so, you assume the viewpoint of an outsider observer. — bizso09

I'd be interested to hear how we could conceptualise an metaphysically objective world without assuming the viewpoint of a hypothetical outside observer.

You say A is A, B is B, C is C, it's all self evident, they are part of the topology of the universe, they are their own flags. But this is incomplete because the world does not just consist of A, B and C but also an additional observer that is making the statement about A, B and C. You cannot ignore the observer. — bizso09

By definition, the metaphysically objective world has no observer, because then it would no longer be objective. Of course to imagine any kind of world, I have to imagine myself observing it. But that's a crutch my imagination needs, it doesn't say anything about how things actually are like.

Your argument would also lead to an infinite recursion of observers, because any observe would have to be part of a yet deeper reality, ad infinitum.

Fundamentally, things must exist in relation to a specific reference point or observer. They cannot exist without a reference point. When something exists, it must exist in relation to something. That something is called "the first person perspective". This must be unique because there is a single way for things to either exist or not exist. — bizso09

So, it follows that the observer also doesn't exist, because it cannot relate to itself. So what's the category of being that applies to the observer?

When you mistakenly introduce other perspectives, then again you talk about a collection of entities, so those entities must again exist in relation to some reference point. Basically, when I say there is a reference point, I'm making the statement that "things exist". These two statements are equivalent. — bizso09

Why must entities exist? By your own logic, entities either enter into a relation to an observer, in which case they exist, or they don't. But crucially there are entities that don't exist but still have properties.

If you try to derive this argument from your perspective, you will arrive at the conclusion that that reference point for things to exist is in fact "your reference point". Every person can do this. However, we've seen that there is only one such reference point. Hence, there is a contradiction, because you cannot have multiple worlds out there with multiple reference points, when there is a single way for everything to exist or not. It's a binary choice. — bizso09

I don't see how the contradiction follows. If, and I would agree with this, existence is a relation and not a property, then the same entity can be in different relations with different observers.

The reason the reference point resides in me, is because I know I exist here and I observe. — bizso09

But you don't exist, according to your own definition.

It just occurred to me the reasoning behind this topic is virtually identical to moral realism.

don't worry, it's nothing personal

I'd be interested to hear how we could conceptualise an metaphysically objective world without assuming the viewpoint of a hypothetical outside observer. — Echarmion

It is not possible. In the previous example about A,B,C, you'd be ignoring the observer, "yourself", typing out your reply on this forum. But in fact, I'd be ignoring myself observing your typing. The ultimate observer in this chain is me right now watching myself type on my laptop. If we're talking about the world, then we have to include this. We cannot conceptualise it away.

Of course to imagine any kind of world, I have to imagine myself observing it. But that's a crutch my imagination needs — Echarmion

It's not just a crutch of imagination, it's a fundamental part of reality we live in.

Your argument would also lead to an infinite recursion of observers — Echarmion

That's correct, but you can show that no matter how many recursions you do, you will always end up with a single ultimate observer. If there was no observer in the end, that would mean nothing would exist.

By your own logic, entities either enter into a relation to an observer, in which case they exist, or they don't — Echarmion

The observer and existence itself are the same thing. If something exists, then it is observed by the reference point. If something does not exist, it is not observed.

But crucially there are entities that don't exist but still have properties. — Echarmion

What is a thing that does not exist but has property? If we're talking about the world that is everything, then that includes that. There is nothing outside of it.

then the same entity can be in different relations with different observers — Echarmion

Existence is a binary thing. Either something is included in "everything" or it's not. There is no "something" outside of everything. You cannot have multiple existences because by definition the world would expand to include it all.

I'd go so far as to say that existence is in fact "unary" because if something does not exist, you cannot make any statements about it. For example, when you talk about dead people, you're talking about things that exist in the universe at a particular point of time, or the memories of them, but they still exist there.

But you don't exist, according to your own definition. — Echarmion

Since the observer is existence itself, and we're typing on our laptops right now, we can conclude that there is existence and hence there is an observer. So we know that there is at least one observer out there. We also know that there cannot be more than one. So the question remains, where is this unique observer or reference point? Well, it's where the first person perspective resides. If I ask you the question, do you have first person perspective, my answer would be "no", because you have a third person perspective. If I ask myself, do I have first person perspective, then the answer is "yes". Hence, I know the observer is me. There is absolutely no contradiction for me. The contradiction arises because you claim you also have a "first person perspective". But by definition in any reality, there is one first person perspective, not multiple. You cannot have multiple first person perspectives, because then those would not be "truly" first person, from the perspective of the ultimate observer.

If you don't want to believe this, because you think you are an observer, that's fine. But in that case, you must believe that I am not a real observer, and you are the only one. Do you believe that? The fact that I have proof known to me about me being an observer would be irrelevant for you. In particular, you cannot come to the conclusion that you are not the only observer.

It is not possible. In the previous example about A,B,C, you'd be ignoring the observer, "yourself", typing out your reply on this forum. But in fact, I'd be ignoring myself observing your typing. The ultimate observer in this chain is me right now watching myself type on my laptop. If we're talking about the world, then we have to include this. We cannot conceptualise it away. — bizso09

So if you're the ultimate observer, where do you reside? You cannot be part of the world, according to this argument, so what's the term for the world + the observer?

It's not just a crutch of imagination, it's a fundamental part of reality we live in. — bizso09

But, again, "we" don't live in that reality, but outside of it, as observers.

That's correct, but you can show that no matter how many recursions you do, you will always end up with a single ultimate observer. — bizso09

This sentence is contradictory. If there is an infinite recursion of observers, there is no ultimate observer. One excludes the other.

The observer and existence itself are the same thing. If something exists, then it is observed by the reference point. If something does not exist, it is not observed. — bizso09

That doesn't work. Either existence is a relation between the observer and the observed, or it is the observer. It cannot be both. If "existence" means "to be observed by the reference point" it cannot at the same time mean "to be a point of reference".

You're going to have to decide on the definitions you want to use.

What is a thing that does not exist but has property? — bizso09

The red fire breathing winged dragon in my garage.

If we're talking about the world that is everything, then that includes that. There is nothing outside of it. — bizso09

Again, you're contradicting yourself. If the world is that which is observed, the observer must be outside of it.

Existence is a binary thing. Either something is included in "everything" or it's not. There is no "something" outside of everything. You cannot have multiple existences because by definition the world would expand to include it all. — bizso09

There is no logical connection here between the first sentence and the following sentences. Yes existence is binary. It doesn't follow that everything exists.

I'd go so far as to say that existence is in fact "unary" because if something does not exist, you cannot make any statements about it. For example, when you talk about dead people, you're talking about things that exist in the universe at a particular point of time, or the memories of them, but they still exist there. — bizso09

You could use existence in this way, but it would clash with the definition you have been using above.

Since the observer is existence itself, and we're typing on our laptops right now, we can conclude that there is existence and hence there is an observer. — bizso09

Refer to my point above as to why this doesn't work.

So the question remains, where is this unique observer or reference point? Well, it's where the first person perspective resides. — bizso09

And just where is that?

If I ask you the question, do you have first person perspective, my answer would be "no", because you have a third person perspective. If I ask myself, do I have first person perspective, then the answer is "yes". Hence, I know the observer is me. There is absolutely no contradiction for me. The contradiction arises because you claim you also have a "first person perspective" — bizso09

That's not a contradiction, but a disagreement. And your use of language here is really weird.

But by definition in any reality, there is one first person perspective, not multiple. — bizso09

I'd like to see that definition.

If you don't want to believe this, because you think you are an observer, that's fine. But in that case, you must believe that I am not a real observer, and you are the only one. Do you believe that? The fact that I have proof known to me about me being an observer would be irrelevant for you. In particular, you cannot come to the conclusion that you are not the only observer. — bizso09

It should be obvious from this bit to you that your conclusion is absurd, and therefore there probably is a mistake in your reasoning.

↪Banno ↪A Seagull

Since he apparently is directing his question to himself...

...I wonder why he does not have an answer? — Frank Apisa

Who knows? Everyone is entitled to their dreams.

Ok let's take a step back. I'll try to derive the argument from your point of view.

Do you agree that things exist?
Do you agree that you are and have a perspective?
Do you agree that others have a perspective?

Given that you answered all 3 of these questions "yes", tell me how you know which perspective you have? Where is that information stored?

The answer to this question is you know it, because one of the perspectives is seen from the first person point of view, while others are not. The extra information in the world, which tells you who you are is contained in the first person point of view. That is the differentiator.

Now let's assume that there is no first person point of view. That means you cannot observe the world. Observation can only happen in first person. So that means you do not exist.

You are not your body, not your thoughts, not your mind because those things can still exist without a perspective. You are the perspective itself. You are the angle of observation.

If you do not exist, does the world still exist? As far as you're concerned, the world comes about because you observe it. In fact, if you do not exist, then nothing makes sense anymore for you, because everything requires you to be here in the first place. If you say that the world still exists when you do not, then that statement makes no sense.

But since things do exist for you, that means you are. And for you, things can exist, precisely because you are here to observe them. Note, do not confuse observing with knowing. Things can still be observed without knowing them. Observation merely means that they can be related to you in some form.

Next question, why don't other people have perspectives? That's because perspective has to be in first person. In the world you live, only you have that. So it makes no sense to talk about others having first perspectives, because you know that only you have it.

You might say, others do have first perspectives in their own worlds. But if you talk about these "other" worlds, that means they exist, and as a result, you can observe them within your world. If you observe their perspectives, they won't be first person anymore, because they are "other" and not you.

If these other worlds are outside of your world, then as far as you're concerned, they do not exist all, because in order for things to exist, they must be observable for you. So when you say, these other perspectives exist and are outside of your world, that's a nonsensical statement.

Why is perspective a thing in the world? Simply because it tells you who you are. Are you a thing in the world? How do you know that you are a thing? It's because things exist for you. If you were not a thing, nothing would exist for you, and it would make no sense to have this conversation between us.

The final bit of the argument says that every person can derive this argument, leading to the conclusion that only their perspective is first. However, you know that only you have the first perspective because that's what defines you, and other perspectives are not first. Hence, although it looks like there is a contradiction, there is no contradiction at all.

Nonetheless, you cannot prove this to others, because doing so would require sharing your first person perspective with them, at which point others would become "you" and you would need to prove things to yourself, which is unnecessary, as you already know that you are you.