I too quite possess quite a cursory and disjointed conception of all philosophy, meaning that this is a novelty to me too. I don't feel quite as entrapped by it as you appear to, however.

From what I can gather, your impasse isn't one that can be combatted easily. It's not to be underappreciated; the existential crisis that results from a lack of belief in the concrete world is terrifying. What is a criticism of external reality, soon evolves into a disbelief of all external existence, and finally, a refusal to believe in and of itself.

Irrespective of whether or not you find an answer, I insist that you not succumb to nihilistic proclivities that may arise as a consequence of this. Affirm what you find meaning in, and do so trusting that you will find rationalizations to those affirmations later.

I've been trying to do that so far, but it hasn't worked. Once I stop doing the things I find meaning in it comes back in to me. Even when I wake it comes back. I don't like problems with no solutions, or people saying that I am presupposing that I am experiencing a "thing" when solipsism doesn't argue that.

Solipsism is something we’ve all thought and it’s normal to toy with those ideas. However, dwelling on it too much and letting it dictate your life is pointless and not very useful. If it starts to really impede your life it could be a kind of “philosophical OCD”. That’s beyond our pay-grade but if this stuff bothers you stay away from internet rabbit holes (they’ll never help) and contact a counselor

I'm sort of in the tempest without a boat. — Darkneos

I recommend you to stop doubting and to start swimming.

I suppose sensation is being as opposed to not being. Without sensation, there is nothing, which is inconceivable to the conscious mind. Stop moving completely for a moment, stop thinking, do not attempt to rationalize anything and just be still. Your state of being at that time will be the only thing in existence from your perspective, to assume that anything else is existing will require faith. I guess I can't give you a concrete answer because you are still presupposing that you are experiencing a "thing." Why does this have to be so? 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.

It's just that the doubt gets me thinking and it worms it's way in. I've always taken this sort of thing for granted in the past, that other people exist, external reality, etc. I never doubted that until it was asked "how do I know"? I don't have an answer. How do I even know I am experiencing a thing?

https://www.quora.com/Is-solipsism-a-satisfying-philosophical-thought

The first answer here says the Incompleteness Theorems says that all truth is ultimately solipsistic and that nothing can be proved without resorting to unproveable premises. Also the Boltzmann brain thought experiment.

I get that everyone is trying to say to me that other people exist, but how do you know? How does anyone know?

I get that everyone is trying to say to me that other people exist, but how do you know? How does anyone know? — Darkneos

The burden of proof for Solipsism, is to prove that like minded people and a real world do not exist. Good luck with that ! What proof do you have?

Solipsism dose not take into account the relational nature of existence, it makes no comment on this issue whatsoever. Nothing can exist relative to itself. A human being is born. A human being is a living organism, that has evolved in the biosphere, so it has evolved relative to the biosphere. A human organism must exchange gases, heat, take in water, food, excrete entropy, etc, as well as interpret sensory data from the information surrounding them. Note you have evolved various senses to interpret sensory data relating to the information external to you. Sorry to put it this way, but you are a system evolved to interact with an external world, and other people.

Much of the world we interact with is today anthropocentric, so it is easy to forget our biological nature, and to concentrate on information relating to intellect, and so believe the intellect is all that constitutes what we are. You have taken to heart some information written by another human, that says that no other humans exist. Can you see how flawed the logic is?

Solipsism is not the default. Idealism is, I believe. Idealism acknowledges the privacy of the mind , but also acknowledges the relational nature of existence - that other like minded people and a real world exist.

I totally agree with you here. Unfortunately, when strict logic and one's individual, immediate perception suggest something, it moves out of the realm of "ad ignoratiam" as you put it.

This was a follow up to my original quote about who positing the existence of anything else is faith.

For what it's worth, on some level I don't think "Strict logic" would point to solipsism. To me that is more about doubt that anything else, which most people wouldn't unless their senses fail to a drastic degree. I don't think an average logical person would conclude they are the only thing in existence or that they are the only thing they can know to exist (which is one thing I doubt about solipsism). I mean the difference between this world and my dreams is radical, so I don't consider this world "fake" because I would have to know what's real (and that can literally be turtles all the way down). A reasonable person would look at all this and not conclude they made it or it's not real unlike they woke up from it or looked at it from the outside. So in order to prove solipsism true it would have to be false.

Solipsism dose not take into account the relational nature of existence, it makes no comment on this issue whatsoever. Nothing can exist relative to itself. A human being is born. A human being is a living organism, that has evolved in the biosphere, so it has evolved relative to the biosphere. A human organism must exchange gases, heat, take in water, food, excrete entropy, etc, as well as interpret sensory data from the information surrounding them. Note you have evolved various senses to interpret sensory data relating to the information external to you. Sorry to put it this way, but you are a system evolved to interact with an external world, and other people. — Pop

There's still that pesty "last thursdayism" where everything you knew and all that was sprung into being last thursday. I'm also sure there is an argument for what you are saying about an external reality (again I urge folks to look at the links, it's a quicker read than it looks).

But I do highly doubt solipsism is the truth because of...well everything around me. I find it highly unlikely I made everything so tuned like this, also why would there be a dream where anything can happen and this world. Even if I don't have hard evidence for an external reality, if I were to comply with his STRICT LOGIC the explanation would be an external reality. It would explain how there is a dream where anything happens, and this reality where everything is stable and enduring. As for my mind and self being the only thing to be known to exist, I disagree. That's an assumption, especially since I don't even know what a mind is truth be told.

If I want to Occam's Razor an external reality is the simplest explanation, I don't see how Occam's Razor leads to solipsism like they claim because to me that just complicates things.

Still, it's...odd to doubt the people you've known for so long. It's scary to invest in them in case they aren't real. Scary to know that when I die there is a chance all of this could be lost and nothing I would do would matter. What point is there in helping others if you don't know if they are even real? Such fears are hard to shake. Makes me wish I never heard of it. You have to understand how little it means to hear other people tell you they exist when a counterpoint could argue that they are just programmed that way.

I noticed one of your links cites Gödel's incompleteness theorem as proof of solipsism, but it is actually an excellent proof of its impossibility. Gödel's theorem states that any axiomatic system requires something outside the system to justify elements within the system. So this would be mathematical proof that a solipsistic consciousness is not a closed / complete system. :smile:

I am not sure if my reply will be of any use, but I am just saying that I used to have a lot of soliptist fantasies, as a child mainly. I used to imagine that I was some creature and that all the other people in my own imagination. Then, I used to think to myself, 'don't be so ridiculous.'

So, when I came across the soliptist argument I realised that I was had not been alone and the fact that others had this thought was an argument against it.

But on occasions the soliptist fantasy does drift into my mind. Mainly when I feel isolated and lacking in helpful connections. I feel a bit of an outsider, looking at the world rather than participating at times. Perhaps you are an outsider. I recommend The Outsider, by Colin Wilson, which is my favourite book. It is not an actual introduction to philosophy, but there are plenty anyway. What Wilson does is gives an interesting way of viewing the human condition, especially helpful if you feel outside of the world, wondering if it is all a dream.

Ok, after reading your reply, I think I understand your real issue.

Your issue isn't Solipsism. Your issue is epistemology.

I want to pose to you a question. How do you know anything? What is the difference between belief and rational conclusions?

You are applying this question right now to "solipsism", but neglecting to apply it to everything else. Unless you first answer the question, "How do I know anything", then the you cannot know that solipsism is correct, or incorrect. At best right now, solipsism is a belief, and the idea that other people exist is also a belief.

But how do you know the food you eat will not kill you? How do you know the apple you eat tomorrow is still good?

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.

No, the default here is that our interpretation of reality all exists in our mind. We are very constrained in reality, and need "something" to connect with. We see because light bounces off of objects, and this is provable. Try moving your mind outside of your head. Can't do it can you? There are serious rules and restrictions that require "something else" for us to interact with.

Fortunately we also have science to help us there. I highly suggest googling neuroscience. You should see all of the advancements scientists are making in understanding the brain. Why is this important? Because you'll realize that you and everyone else have a brain. That reactions from people are repeatable. That people need to eat, or they die. You learn that you were born of another person, like everyone else. It turns out that there are things beyond our sensations. That we can LACK a sensation, but still be affected by things in the outside world.

Since each consciousness only has access to its own consciousness, it has no way of proving that any other consciousness exists.

You can do a very simple experiment. Chat with another person. If they understand you, then you know that they at least think like you in terms of language. You can come across other people who speak in a different language than yourself. You can then learn that language, and find there has been a consistency all along. You could even test this yourself. Record people speaking spainish, learn spainish, then come back later and see that they were speaking something meaningful all along.

Solipsism is mostly the idea that you are the progenitor of the world. That is clearly false. The idea that we interpret the world through our own lens? That's just normal thinking. We all do that. But still, you might be saying, "Yeah, but how do I KNOW?!" And the answer to that is, "How do you know anything?" What separates the link from belief to knowledge? We're back again to epistemology, which is the core of the issue.

In my ramble, I just want to clarify the points.

1. The fact that our minds interpret the world does not mean our minds create the world. We need some "thing" to interpret.

2. The fact that we all interpret the world though our minds, but do not understand other things as they are in themselves, is not solipsism. That's merely a given in how we function.

3. The question of what separates our interpretation of the world as "beliefs" vs. "knowledge" is the question of epistemology. "How do we know other people exist?" is really just one of the many questions of "knowledge". Just like, "How do I know I exist", "This apple exists?" etc.

Conclusion: Start studying epistemology and neuroscience. Then you will be able to answer the real question, "How do I know anything?", which will lead you to the rest of your answers.

I think the title 'help coping with' implies you don't like the idea, such as I am not solipsistic and don't like genocide, war, capitialism etc. I have to make a choice to take a 'leap of faith' that there are good people in the world. I appreciate this is oversimplifying it but you could try to believe you're not alone. I think this philosophy could be a self fulfilling prophecy of you let it. Spend time with and connect with people and be present to experience the connection (and not skeptical that it's a creation of your consciousness) which seems to me to transcend my individual experience of the world.

Yes I realized that now. I find it comical how many misuse the theorems.

There was a reply on the Reddit page for solipsism that helped me out a lot:

A thing being logically sound =/= that thing being true. In fact since the idea that the world is as it seems is logically sound, that argument is self defeating.

If you want to throw around philosophical razors and logical gizmos, Occam’s razor is the idea that the simpler more mundane explanation is more often the correct one. So we have a) the world is as it presents itself, or b) everything is a lie and you are the only real thing in this world. Occam’s razor is really firmly against solipsism. However, just as something being logical does not necessitate its truth, Occam’s razor does not dictate truth either.

I’d also point out while we are on the subject of Razors that Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword (for an idea to be worth discussing as a true possibility it must have demonstrable consequences), Hitchen’s razor (he who makes the claim must provide proof, a claim without proof requires no evidence to dismiss), and Sagan’s Standard (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) are all also firmly against solipsism.

https://www.reddit.com/r/solipsism/

Though browsing the Reddit for it helps show me how stupid it is from an outside perspective. People tend to interpret it as something spiritual or whatnot, saying we are all one (which is NOT what it says, even the wikipedia page clarifies that on the Eastern religions).

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

Well the OP in the thread thinks that we are presupposing the existence of a thing to interact with but does not elaborate on that. He also thinks that it is the end result of Occam's Razor, but that is debatable to be honest.

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/17145957#17145957

Other topics say that solipsism just says that one cannot know if other minds exist or other consciousness but it doesn't deny such things just that you can't know for sure. If this is the claim then I can agree with that. I cannot know for sure. It's all induction. But Occam's Razor seems to point against solipsism not for it, but even then Occam's Razor doesn't make something right.

But to answer the question of how do I know? I don't for sure. I read things, test them and if it works then that's how I know. But for this I can't really test it.

I find it odd that he suggests that the position of solipsism is supported by his observations (early on in the thread).

I can cheer you up. — bongo fury

Also, people spooking you out on a magic mushrooms forum reminds me that the wisdom proffered in my linked post probably derives from some very helpful advice that I was lucky enough to once receive, during a difficult session of precisely that species of very silly (though fascinating) indulgence. Which was, to see myself as a walking talking person, rather than from "inside".

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

If you want to solve the problem of solipsism, you will need to be more disciplined.
A haphazard, ameteurish approach to philosophizing is a recipe for disaster.

I'm not going to solve the problem of solipsism. I can't. Everything could be my imagination, creating the world around me. Actually, that makes a lot of sense. I don't have to consider other people because they're not real. It takes a load off - while flattering my ego. I like it. Besides, how horrifying would it be to have to imagine myself as a passer-by in someone else's solipsistic view of reality - a nothing to them, as they are to me, because they're not real? No. It has to be me imagining them. They can't be solipsistic. I am.

it's unproveable and unrefutable — Darkneos

Because it makes absolutely no experiential difference, and therefore it doesn’t matter whether it’s true or false — it’s completely meaningless. If solipsism is true then there’s still part of “you” that you don’t have conscious awareness and willful control of, and then the “part” of you (reckoned to be the whole of you by non-solipsists) that you do. That’s functionally the same thing as a difference between “the rest of the world” and “yourself”, so solipsism amounts to just renaming those categories in a needlessly confusing way.

Not all individualists are solipsists, and not all solipsists are individualists.

And why can't a solipsist be a realist? after all, the thought that the external world has independent existence is just a thought, and solipsists accept the existence of thoughts.

And why can't a solipsist be a realist? after all, the thought that the external world has independent existence is just a thought, and solipsists accept the existence of thoughts. — sime

I just don't know what to say...

And why can't a solipsist be a realist? after all, the thought that the external world has independent existence is just a thought, and solipsists accept the existence of thoughts. — sime

Because a solipsist thinks it's no more than just a thought and is not actually the case. While a realist thinks it is the case. This is like saying "Why can't a pro life person be pro choice? After all, the thought that mothers should be able to choose to abort is just a thought, and pro-lifers accept the existence of thoughts"

Whatever that is out there, represented internally by our external sensory experience, it's what the word reality refers to. Solipcism answers nothing and isn't even potentially meaningful.

One way to think about is through the work of theater. It takes a lot of work to put on a show. If you know that you are not doing anything toward that end, some other actors must be involved.
Therefore, QED.

Because — khaled

And why can't a solipsist be a realist? after all, the thought that the external world has independent existence is just a thought, and solipsists accept the existence of thoughts.
— sime

I just don't know what to say... — Banno

I think of some concepts parallel to solipsism: epistemic egoism, epistemic narcissism, epistemic authoritarianism.
Narcissists, egoists, and authoritarians can be realists, they can believe that there is a world apart from their person, they just don't care about it, or they see themselves as categorically superior to it. So, for practical intents and purposes, they might as well be solipsists.

A solipsist refuse to learn from others' experiences.
We simply need to believe that others exists to function properly.
Maintaining a solipsist view, eventually will ruin your mental health to the point that you start dissociating, or even experience psychosis.
Your body will FORCE you to drop solipsism, otherwise you cannot recover. Simple as that.
The body is king. If you turn against it, your brain will shut your thinking down. :)

Sorry for my bad english.

We simply need to believe that others exists to function properly. — Atman

True. Philosophers are good at living with contradiction though. Idealists do, materialists do.

The perennial philosophy is basically solipsism. It's a well worn set of pathways.

As i understand it, solipsism presupposes a subject.

While perennialism's sole aim is removing subjectivity completely.

While perennialism's sole aim is removing subjectivity all together. — Atman

Is it?

Removing that guy in your head, looking through your eyes. :) That's what meditation is for originally.

Sadly, there are even more frightening things than solipsism.

Removing that guy in your head, looking through your eyes. :) That's what meditation is for originally. — Atman

I see. But you'd still be conscious, just not chained to a particular identity?