When you tear down the labels and rationalizations behind everything you'll find there is no longer any point of reference, and no coherency. You are left with nothing but the sensation of your own isolated perception, with no clear source or meaning in sight.

I think this sounds vaguely Buddhist? There are lots of labels for things, including the label "thing" and the label "label". The sense of self is just that - a sense, no different from any other experience.

some say it's the default position and that the solipsist doesn't need evidence but the realist does. — Darkneos

When people talk about philosophical stuff, each person comes in with a collection of assumptions, which provides a context that without which nothing would get off the ground. There is no such thing as a default position in philosophy - that's just another name for a prejudice, aka this position is the default position because I personally cannot fathom how it could not otherwise be true given certain assumptions which I coincidentally believe to be irrefutable.

I'm just looking for help. The prospect of being cosmically alone is really depressing. — Darkneos

Nobody is cosmically alone. It is an impossibility. You cannot exist without the information surrounding you. The information surrounding you includes your friends, family, community, etc. Whilst you comprehend this information in your mind, it is real information from real sources - your peers, and a real physical world. Consciousness can not exist in the absence of integrated information, In my opinion, so external information is vital for consciousness. This means connection to externalities, without which everything would be ineffable. So don't worry, you are not cosmically alone, and can not possibly be.

That you have sent a message to other people would seem to cancel out the idea that you are the only one in existence, or that you believe you are the only one in existence.

Still, solipsism is an idea (or a delusion, obsession, or some other form of erroneous thinking) that many have played around with.

Best practice: Think about it for a while, then move on to something more useful.

Well I'm embarrassed to admit that I poked around a few forums and got responses of people saying it's true, some saying it's not, some saying it doesn't matter, etc. The ones who said it was true stuck out the most in my mind.

I also browsed a few forums that had philosophy sections and two of them stuck out (I know that the site name might seem like it's sketchy but rest assured I don't partake in the stuff, I just found some people arguing about it there and I couldn't come up with a good rebuttal to their points):

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4846074/fpart/2/vc/1#4846074

(This one is the one that sort of shook my sanity on the subject)

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/14562023/fpart/2/vc/1#14562023

This is the one that maintained solipsism as the default and that realism is the one that needs to meet the burden of proof. I read through both but the first one gave me the most issues. I wasn't entirely convinced that solipsism is the default. People sometimes use the dream argument for solipsism but my point to that is that you only know that world was "fake" because you woke from it. It says nothing about the world you woke up in.

Nobody is cosmically alone. It is an impossibility. You cannot exist without the information surrounding you. The information surrounding you includes your friends, family, community, etc. Whilst you comprehend this information in your mind, it is real information from real sources - your peers, and a real physical world. Consciousness can not exist in the absence of integrated information, In my opinion, so external information is vital for consciousness. This means connection to externalities, without which everything would be ineffable. So don't worry, you are not cosmically alone, and can not possibly be. — Pop

I'm pretty sure that the reply I heard to this stance on the matter is that such a stance is not "known" it is a leap of faith to assume others and an external world. I would love for it to be an impossibility because I can ditch this ghost. But the information around me is just that, information. It doesn't make them real or existent. As my quote from the thread I read says, we presuppose that this information comes from a source or that we are experiencing some "thing". I don't mean to sound like a "butt" but I'm just saying what I've heard others say in response to such claims. I want to be over this, yes. But I don't want to cheap shot it, though I'm not sure what that entails.

I'm pretty sure that the reply I heard to this stance on the matter is that such a stance is not "known" it is a leap of faith to assume others and an external world. — Darkneos

How were you born? who brought you up? who did you play with? But the best proof is when two people get together and they become greater then their sum. Such as going to the football and becoming part of the crowd. That others exist and you are part of the crowd is palpable. So go to the football and feel it for yourself, and put this silly nonsense to rest.

It doesn't make them real or existent. As my quote from the thread I read says, we presuppose that this information comes from a source or that we are experiencing some "thing". — Darkneos

Even in solipsism, the information comes from a source, and you ARE experiencing something alright, but you fear that what you experience is NOT REAL, that's is like a video game. Note that one experiences something when one is immersed in a video game.

I had the same nagging thought as a teen. I believe it can lead people to madness (schizophrenia). The way I got out of it, was:

1) by reasoning along Descartes: the idea implies that some god created a virtual world and chose you (and only you) to experience this simulation. A god doing such a thing would be a liar and also pretty stupid. After all, if a god can build a simulation of such a high quality, what is stopping him from building the real thing? He's lazy? He doesn't have enough money? Ergo the idea makes no sense from the creator's perspective.

2) by realizing that the infinite richness of this world, in terms of sensory input (colors, smells, sounds), its strong internal coherence and the fact that I can't predict or control much of it, all this make this world very real. There is no essential difference between a real illusion and a real reality, if the illusion is so perfect. It makes no difference whether it is 'real' or 'virtual': it's the world I live in, it's beautiful and merciless at the same time, and there's no exit other than death.

So assuming that God is not a lazy asshole, and understanding that there is no meaningful difference between a reality and its perfect simulation, I opted to put the question at rest and enjoy the ride.

I don't think the answer is in finding arguments. If this is plaguing you move towards people, animals, nature...the other. Engage with people. The issue is whether you believe it, not whether it can be proven or disproven. And if it is plaguing you it is likely just the surface of the real issue, which is likely to be interpersonal with roots going back in time. More thinking is not going to dissolve this.

When people talk about philosophical stuff, each person comes in with a collection of assumptions — darthbarracuda

:up:



Definition:
Solipsism: the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

To my reckoning, solipsism smacks of idealism which I understand to mean that all is mind. For a physicalist who thinks we're brains proving others exist is a piece of cake - a simple CT scan or an MRI of the brain should do the trick. Right? :chin:

I don't think the answer is in finding arguments. — Coben

It helped Descartes and it helped me, so it can work.

Ah, I thought you were the OP writer and took your previous post as coming from him. I meant that he (or she) was asking for help with solipsism, a way to prove to himself it was not true and it seemed to be unpleasant thinking it was. He was asking for help from us, the participants here. You responded, though I thought it was him, that 'it' had helped Descartes. Well, then it seemed to me there was no problem anymore. He could just read descartes, what role is the plea in the OP.

But now I know you are a third person. My response to him is based on my sense that if someone is suffering and worrying that solipsism might be the case, this is a sign of something else. If one is engaged in life and close to other people, I don't think one ends up worrying about solipsism. One certainly might find it an interesting philosophical conundrum. I am not saying it should not be discussed. But I think that if it is to the point of being a source of pain, it is really a symptom of other things that should be addressed first. If those are addressed then the interest in the issue may go away OR if it doesn't it will not be an interest coupled with so much fear.

I suppose in the background I also do not think one can prove that solipsism is not the case. So a person suffering running through arguments against solipsism, to my mind, is heading not towards ameliorating that suffering but rather avoiding dealing with more core issues.

What would you need us for? — Coben

Us?

I suppose in the background I also do not think one can prove that solipsism is not the case. — Coben

No, but you can prove it's moot, that it makes no essential difference.

Another way to solve the equation is to realize that indeed we do live in a simulation of sorts, but not the kind where one is all alone in an absurd universe: we ALL (you, darkneos and me) live in our mental landscapes, constructed from sensory inputs translated into qualia. The color red, or the music of your favorite band doesn't actually exist 'out there', it's a view of the mind. What seems to exist are air presure waves and quanta of light and stuff. And yet we can all enjoy music and share meaningfully about it; we can all enjoy a sunset and call the attention of others to its splending colors. So this simulation that our brain does based on sensory data is a pretty good one, as far as simulations go. It's both effective, beautiful, and most probably universal (by which I mean your qualia for red is by and large the same as my qualia for red).

So we do live in a simulation of reality, but a good, trustable one.

And in the final analysis, this simulation (or another) is necessary, because as Kant said, between the world 'as it is' and the human mind, there must be a form of translation, of representation, an intermediary. Minds cannot be 'intimate' with the rest of the world. There's by necessity a chasm between thebtwo, and therefore, a need for a bridge. As it turns out, our natural bridge is made of qualia. One can reject that particular bridge to reality 'out there', and decide to build another instead. But one will always need a bridge, and the bridge we have naturally is pretty good. So walk on it, embrace it, adopt it, love your simulation. It's the best you can get.

You can attack it in a pragmatic manner by saying "Sure all these people and everything else may just be in my head but I know for a fact I don't like being hurt and so acting in a way that treats people as objects is not in my best interests, therefore your position produces no change in behavior or even a change in how I think of others so I frankly don't care whether or not it's true"

Or you can just say "Sure it's faith but that's fine by me"

Or "If you're a solipsist why are you wasting time explaining to a piece of nothing that the piece of nothing should think that it's the only thing with experience"

I like 1 and 3. The quote you put in seems very buddhist by the way. Maybe they're in some way similar. Could be another thread.


Also a tip from my history of philosophical angst: Doing philosophy is the worst way to get rid of philosophical angst. The best way is to go do something else. Then think about it again way later maybe.

Best advice here tbh

It's a bit more than that. Solipsism is the belief that you are the only thing that exists and that everything else is a piece of YOUR mind. It is a form of "all is mind" but moreover it is "all is one mind, mine"

It's a bit more than that. Solipsism is the belief that you are the only thing that exists and that everything else is a piece of YOUR mind. It is a form of "all is mind" but moreover it is "all is one mind, mine" — khaled

What do you make of my comment on physicalism and how if one subscribes to it, there's no issue proving the existence of so-called others?

No, but you can prove it's moot, that it makes no essential difference. — Olivier5

I think if there is only my mind, it would make a difference to me. And I think it makes a difference to him.But I'll read your proof when you get to it for him.

Another way to solve the equation is to realize that indeed we do live in a simulation of sorts, but not the kind where one is all alone in an absurd universe: we ALL (you, darkneos and me) live in our mental landscapes, constructed from sensory inputs translated into qualia. The color red, or the music of your favorite band doesn't actually exist 'out there', it's a view of the mind. What seems to exist are air presure waves and quanta of light and stuff. And yet we can all enjoy music and share meaningfully about it; we can all enjoy a sunset and call the attention of others to its splending colors. So this simulation that our brain does based on sensory data is a pretty good one, as far as simulations go. It's both effective, beautiful, and most probably universal (by which I mean your qualia for red is by and large the same as my qualia for red — Olivier5

Though you are just asserting this here.

Though you are just asserting this here. — Coben

Yes. But I think it may be the reason why the idea that the world we are immersed in is an illusion is so pregnant: because it is one, to a degree.

:up: you must be a football fan.

Not a worry! There is one grain of truth we can get out of solipsism, and its that the only way we know the world is through our own perception. But that's really it. It doesn't mean we cannot relate to others, or that nothing exists that is not within our perception.

One way to think on this is your ability to create a perception that "reality" doesn't want you to have. Try jumping in the air and resisting gravity. Can't do it can you? It turns out you are perceiving things you have no control over. At best what solipsism can claim is "you" are the thing that you have control over. While things that you have no control over aren't "you".

So other people? We don't really have control over them do we? If we don't have control over them, they aren't "you". And what should we call others? Maybe..."things"? We realize that we perceive these things, and can react to it to an extent. But they can do things to us that we have no control over, so we realize logically that they do not only exist within us, but outside of us as well.

Well I was hoping people would leaf through the links I left and point out something that I missed in it.

You ask me to act on faith but that sounds very uncomfortable to me. When I think faith I think of religion and the like and that faith is sort of a weakness of the mind for those who can't accept reality. I wish I had the strength of mind to believe you guys but, I've just read several replies that make me question the notion of other people. Some on Quora say it's true because all we have is experience. To believe in others is faith. I'm not sure how to reply to the few who say it's true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

"There is no conceptual or logically necessary link between mental and physical—between, say, the occurrence of certain conscious experience or mental states and the 'possession' and behavioral dispositions of a 'body' of a particular kind."

You say it's no difference between a perfect illusion or a real deal, but the way I see it if this is just all in my head then nothing matters and I am truly alone. There is no family, friends, other people. There is no reason to treat anyone well or invest in this reality at that point because it all vanishes on my death. Were it real then it would be different because I would be impacting the lives of people and making a difference or change. But if it's not, well then I feel like nihilism would follow shortly after. It's why I can't take seriously that it doesn't matter, it does. I mean by that logic it would matter how I treat characters in a video game when that isn't true because they aren't real.

Also the link I provided explains how it's a straw man to say a solipsist can bend reality, solipsism does not assert that you can defy the laws of physics.

I've tried thinking about something else but this worms it's way into everything in my life because it shattered the certainty I had in an external reality. I'm not even sure how I'm still holding it together like this.

There are several variations of solipsism within the wikipedia article you linked. Which one is giving you difficulty?

As for your links, it would be much more helpful if you would give the general premises you're having trouble with. No one is going to look through other forum posts to see the issue that is giving you trouble.

This is the one that maintained solipsism as the default and that realism is the one that needs to meet the burden of proof. — Darkneos

Ha ha! Of course solipsism isn't the default. Otherwise we would all be sitting around going, "What if reality isn't only just in my mind? What if...things outside of my mind exist as well!?"

Relax. You know other things besides yourself exist. What you're having right now is your assumptions challenged. Yes you know these things exist...but why? And that is philosophy. Questioning the obvious in front of us to see if we can analyze it rationally.

One approach is proof by contradiction. Basically, try to contradict the idea that there is something outside of your mind. Then look for contradictions. I gave you an example earlier of not being able to control particular things. Go further than this. If there is only you, what are you made up of? Why can you be injured? Why do you need to eat, drink, and breath? Holding your breath is probably the easiest one to test. See what happens.

If everything was only your perception, what is doing the perceiving? If we are perceiving something, what is that thing if it is us? Is it really perception at that point? Then why is it limited? Etc. Anytime you come to absurdity or a contradiction, then you know you've run into an issue. And trust me, if its only you that exists, you'll run into all kinds of absurdities and contradictions.

Dabbling in solipsism is a perilous prospect; it attempts to beguile you, and should it prove to be successful, you find yourself inescapably immersed in a vacuum with neither a confirmation of existential reality, nor a mechanism of attaining one. Part of the conundrum is that solipsism is, as you iterated, not subject to falsification. It's akin to knowing how to solve a problem, but not having the tools to do so. You're entirely justified in claiming that nihilism a natural corollary to the idea, but I believe a resolution, in practicality, still exists.

Kant's transcendental idealism is a precursor to this resolution. The mere subject of experience, which was stressed on both by Kant and other Existentialists, is what dictates the matter of experience - in that the perception of physical structures is a result of our senses, but not the structures themselves. We can't restructure the world to suit our experience, if an external 'world' isn't existent.

There's another argument to be made. A reality that can't be concretely demonstrated is not equivalent to a reality that is false. Most people spend their entire lives presupposing a priori judgments because they have been passively instructed to do so. The external world not being an illusory facade is another such judgment.

Nonetheless however, should one cease to find faith in either resolution, solipsism gifts you with a number of meaningful comforts. If the existence of your mind is all that can be known, then contemplate this: the entirety of the universe, its most dazzling recesses, the very nature and history of man and all its discoveries - in short, the complete and exhilarating narrative that has complemented your consciousness thus far, is a consequence of your own imagination.
How reassuring an eventuality is that?

Ultimately however, the very nature of solipsism necessitates that you either accept either an axiom of ignorance, or concession to it. There lies no middle ground.

Hi- I sincerely don't think solipsism is a cause for existential despair...

1. Solipsism's story goes: my representations/perceptions exist, but what they refer to does not.
2. This story presupposes a self that 'has' representations/perceptions
3. This self is no more immediately certain than anything else, it is one entity that is only intelligible as an entity in relation to other entities (there can be no concept of self without other, no concept of mind without external 'content' etc.)
4. Therefore solipsism is incoherent as it demands a standard of reality for representations/perceptions of things 'external' to the mind that cannot be applied to its own premise (that there is a 'mind' or 'self').

Solipsism has been a wound on my mind, mostly because it's unproveable and unrefutable. Some people say it's true, some believe it, some say it's the default position and that the solipsist doesn't need evidence but the realist does. I'm not sure who to believe to be honest and I'm rather weak on this matter. — Darkneos

Contrary to your assertion, I don't think anyone believes solipsism is true. It's a hypothetical viewpoint, and it teaches us something.

Why is no one a solipsist? Because we have a innate way of perceiving the world, and it includes recognition that there is a world external to ourselves, and there are other beings. This constitutes a belief that solipsism is false.

Consider what it takes to change a belief. Usually, it's because we encounter contrary evidence. Occasionally, it's because we decide the basis for our belief is suspect (the latter is what leads some theists to atheism). But there's no evidence for solipsism, and the basis is innate - which is consistent with evolution.

Clinging to a belief doesn't prove the belief is true, but the mere possibility that it's false is not a good reason to drop it. Face it: you really do perceive an external world. If you'd never heard of solipsism, you'd never have entertained it.

Since solipsism can't be disproved, you should accept that it is logically possible, but this ought not to concern you. Let it be a lesson that we have beliefs that can neither prove nor disprove, and be OK with it.

In all seriousness, get out and do some volunteer work.

More philosophically, Sartre's stare is the best solution to your quandary. Go for a walk through a crowd, naked, and see if you can still convince yourself that only you exist while being stared at by a hundred eyes.

I'm just looking for help. The prospect of being cosmically alone is really depressing. — Darkneos

Maybe what you need is not a philosopher, but a psychiatrist or doctor. If you are literally, rather than figuratively depressed, you may have some physical or chemical glitch in the brain. If so, that can be treated with a prescription. Solipsism syndrome may be a form of pathological doubt. And the inherent uncertainty of philosophy could make it worse. :nerd:

Solipsism Depression : Solipsism syndrome is not currently recognized as a psychiatric disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, though it shares similarities with depersonalization disorder, which is recognized. Solipsism syndrome is distinct from solipsism, which is not a psychological state but rather a philosophical position, namely that nothing exists or can be known to exist outside of one's own mind;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism_syndrome

PS__If you ask a person to pinch you, and you feel the pain, that's a pretty good indication that you are not alone. Unless, of course, you are in the habit of hurting yourself. Which again suggests that you need some non-philosophical counseling, and/or a prescription.

Your interlocutor’s argument is a homunculus argument because it raises the question as to exactly what is sensing “perception” or “experience” (or whatever medium we wish to posit), and how it is able to sense at all. This leads to an infinite regression because it lacks any grounding in a self. It's selves all the way down. So when you ask who or what is experiencing this "perception" you might find he is unable to provide a decent answer. Besides, one cannot perceive perception any more than he can observe observation, employ employment, or legalize legalization. Nominalizing verbs often confuses things whenever the verb collides with its noun version.

I think it is the other way about: the solipsist requires leaps of faith. He must believe, against all evidence to the contrary, that he is not in direct contact with the rest of the world, like a fish in a fishbowl. He must then conjecture how he indirectly receives information through what I assume is some curating interface, possibly prone to error and deception, maybe run by an evil demon, but no less able to project “experience” onto what is surely a veil. Most likely he does not think about how solipsism could be possible at all.

Maybe try extending your notion of self to the very surface of your skin, no more no less. I think solipsism is impossible to believe on such a basis. Only then is one able to conclude that he is in direct contact with the rest of the world, and that it can be known.

Well one of the links I posted questioned why a mind would have to exist anywhere or what rule says that. It also says that solipsism doesn't argue that you can control reality. I would like to say that I can summarize the points but it's a long thread (6 pages) and there is a lot of points made. I don't want to post all of them if I can help it.

Also you say that I know other people exist, but the thing is I don't. I vehemently believe this, but I don't know it (not for sure). It's getting harder each day to be honest and right now I'm just doing this out of habit, but every now any then the full weight of solipsism dawns on me every now and then and it threatens to swallow me.

Sorry for the dense text but this is the post on solipsism as the default:

I will begin by saying that by any standard of proof, the onus is on an opponent of solipsism to prove solipsism is false. That is because solipsism is the default stance. You exist, and that is all you can be sure of. Basic Descartes which has not been shown to be false. The best argument against Cogito is that 'maybe you only think you exist' but this argument can never get off the ground since this already implies the Cogito. (How can you think something without existing?)

Now,

IT is important to define the different notions of solipsism.

First there is the notion that all that exists is your mind. This might encompass an experience.

If if encompasses an experience then nothing disproves solipsism. Your feeling something bump is just a sensation of yours, as is your sensation of being in control of things when you are. All that exists are the sensations, and they are what comprise your mind.

Mind might encompass experience plus action If it encompasses action then there must be something that you have action over. Therefor either you have action over all things or else you have action over some thing, IN WHICH case there exist multiple things.

Now solipsism can still hold true if you think the self has action over some of its 'body'. IF you think that the self is comprised of a body and a mind, then solipsism is still defualt, because quite simply, the things you experience, the 'people' you have relationships with are just part of your body, part that you do not have control over.

To deny solipsism in this sense is to say that other people have consicous minds, but this is not proven and in fact we have no way of proving this. We take it by faith.

If the self is considered to have control over all of itself, then solipsism is clearly FALSE because we do not have control of everything.


So the senses that solipsism is not disproven are:

All that exists is your experience, including your experience of control and of being affected by things that you percieve as 'other'.

Or

All that exists is your mind and your body. You have control over some aspects of the body, and not others. The body supplies your mind with sensations. The crucial point is that no other minds exist.


A sense that solipsism IS disproven is:

All that exists is you (either body+mind or just mind), and you have control over every aspect of yourself. This is not true because we simply dont have control over everything.


Solipsism is a most potent idea in the context of philosophy of MIND. Does your consciousness exist in a world with other consciousnesses or is it just your consciousness?

Since each consciousness only has access to its own consciousness, it has no way of proving that any other consciousness exists. Therefor the default stance is SOLIPSISM. Nevertheless this is hard to accept because we see other 'peope' who seem to behave just like us, therefor we infer INDUCTIVELY that other consciousness probably exists, unproven.

I would like to think that, but the man hasn't been on the forum for 5 years so I doubt I'll get a resolution to that question.

Nonetheless however, should one cease to find faith in either resolution, solipsism gifts you with a number of meaningful comforts. If the existence of your mind is all that can be known, then contemplate this: the entirety of the universe, its most dazzling recesses, the very nature and history of man and all its discoveries - in short, the complete and exhilarating narrative that has complemented your consciousness thus far, is a consequence of your own imagination.
How reassuring an eventuality is that? — Aryamoy Mitra

That rings hollow if I am all alone though. It's like if I won the lottery but had no one to celebrate, or being alone on your birthday. I'm sorry, but I just can't take any comfort in solipsism if it was true. But trying to tell myself that it's not true or that I don't believe it feels like I'm just lying to myself for comfort. I've had this before and the experience then was major unreality to the point that my driving was impacted. I somehow forgot about it, but it came back again because I never "got over it" because it has no solution. I don't now how to go on in life second guessing everything and everyone I meet. I mean if solipsism were true and one feels loneliness, why create all this? But then again it doesn't really say you made all this though, it just says that the mind is all that can be known to exist.

I've combed through a lot of arguments and forums on this so I can't relay everything or remember it all.

I would encourage looking at this one: https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4846074/fpart/2/vc/1#4846074

As the OP's replies kind of hurt my objections to it. I mean the minor saving grace is that the whole thread is just a "maybe", OP believes in it but says he treats it like it's real (still wrapping my head around it).

Other lines of reasoning say: "Nothing exists. Even if it did nothing can be known about it. Even if something could be known it can't be communicated. Even if it could be communicated it can't be understood".

Combined with my poor understanding of philosophy and how it all works and what a good argument or not (and the sting of reading how some folks say it's true), I'm sort of in the tempest without a boat.