One finger cannot point at itself.

Sigh, solipsism, what a show.

For all the solipsists out there, lyrics to a song that touches upon the issue:

See the animal in his cage that you built
Are you sure what side you're on?
Better not look him too closely in the eye
Are you sure what side of the glass you are on?
See the safety of the life you have built
Everything where it belongs
Feel the hollowness inside of your heart
And it's all
Right where it belongs

What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection
Is it all you want it to be?
What if you could look right through the cracks?
Would you find yourself
Find yourself afraid to see?

What if all the world's inside of your head
Just creations of your own?
Your devils and your gods
All the living and the dead
And you're really all alone?
You can live in this illusion
You can choose to believe
You keep looking but you can't find the woods
While you're hiding in the trees

What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you used to know
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection
Is it all you want it to be?
What if you could look right through the cracks
Would you find yourself
Find yourself afraid to see?

Lyrics from the song "Right Where It Belongs" by NIN:

I fail to see how this is unsound though — Darkneos

Why defer to logical reasoning when it is just a figment of your imagination that can be waived off whenever it disagrees with your whims?

Hey, be or don't be a solipisist, whatever you choose to believe. But, in case you choose the former, do keep in mind that when you interact with others the void that is your own projection, the void will interact back with you.

"Any type of sensory input. ... — Darkneos

There you have it, right in the first sentence.

Input
noun: input; plural noun: inputs
1.
what is put in, taken in, or operated on by any process or system.
...

Read: something else. Not the "system" itself.

The phenomenology of solipsism is that this advocate contradicts himself in the first sentence. True Chewbacca - aren't we all Chewbacca?

Why defer to logical reasoning when it is just a figment of your imagination that can be waived off whenever it disagrees with your whims? — javra

The conclusion fails short. It signifies a level of thought where mind has not yet achieved self-conscousness as the being it is. On the other hand the personalizing pronoun tells otherwise and shows the regression that is taking place in that context. Why does everyone just think, that, when talking about a-priori there would be wisdom beyond the obvious.

The conclusion fails short. It signifies a level of thought where mind has not yet achieved self-conscousness as the being it is. — Heiko

:up:

... Although, from my way of thinking, its funny (else mesmerizing) how lesser animals are cognizant, (self-)aware, of their own being as one agency among others - this without the use of cogitations, i.e. inferential thoughts - while we humans often loose sight of this due to a sea of nebulous abstractions. This pov is doubtlessly something controversial among the learned. Not so much with, for one example, human children in regard to their pets. The topic is a can of worms, though.

Why does everyone just think, that, when talking about a-priori there would be wisdom beyond the obvious. — Heiko

Can you elaborate on this? Would like to make sure that I understand you properly.

while we humans often loose sight of this due to a sea of nebulous abstractions — javra

Sounds like Puddles Pitty Party - Could that be done on purpose? Seems much more plausible.

Can you elaborate on this? Would like to make sure that I understand you properly. — javra

When asking what is necessary for experience to be possible, the answer should not lead to the conclusion, that it is not.

Could that be done on purpose? Seems much more plausible. — Heiko

:smile: Personally, I think we each like the stability of our core being - a type of metaphysical self-preservation of the identity we each hold ourselves to have - something along the lines of "ego" when interpreted as the [...] in any statement affirming "I am [...]". Entertaining this concept, then we each desire to hold onto this conceptual identity of being we've acquired via the course of our lives. We, in essence, become attached to the tales we tell ourselves that explain what and who we are. Its no longer a quest to discover what this is but it is already known and must then be safeguarded. Only that different folks hold different conceptualizations of what and who they are. So different folks then abstract different concepts in attempts to confirm (solidify, make firm) their notions of what and who they are - only that these notions often enough conflict, due to being contradictory (relative to each other). And so more such abstractions are then in turn further created for the same core motive - resulting in a massive amount of abstractions that are at odds with each other. Hence the "sea of nebulous abstractions".

So, in a way, yea, maybe it is all done on purpose, as in with a motive.

When asking what is necessary for experience to be possible, the answer should not lead to the conclusion, that it is not. — Heiko

Yes. I firmly reside on this side of the aisle as well. Got it now.

(posted too quickly so I edited the grammatical mistakes I found after posting)

We, in essence, become attached to the tales we tell ourselves that explain what and who we are. — javra

"Things as they are" aren' t much.

That's not true though. Because there are others around me I am not alone. I don't think alone, and I hopefully won't die alone. But if solipsism were the case then it would be true. — Darkneos

But it is true . The existence of other subjects does not mean that you share experience. This is because it is impossible for one subject to have direct access to another subject's immediacy, in fact "subjectivity" necessarily presupposes that your experience is unique to yourself as subject, and separate from all other subjects. The only place you are not alone and share a common experience with others
is in objectivity. (Strickly speaking, there is no objectivity for the solipsist).

But maybe I'm not understanding you, maybe you can tell me, how can another subject directly experience your death?
How can another subject directly posses your thoughts?

I can't see why anyone would do it. Willingly choose to be cosmically alone and shut off from any friends or loved ones.

What about the quantum physics that proves it though? — Darkneos

How does quantum science prove solipsism? I haven't made the connection.

Is it a choice to be a solipsist, or is it just the way it is for the solipsist? The importance of existence for the subject is the same either way, solipsist or not. For example, why would you act differently with your projections than with your perception of other subjects? Both options seem to have identical consequences, whether solipsist or not. There are definite rules of conduct for there solipsist, just as the are for the nonsolipsist. How not?

"Things as they are" aren' t much. — Heiko

Hmm. And so ontology gets thrown out the window. I'd say fine, but then epistemology would have no ontological grounding.

At any rate, I fully get that what I wrote in my last post was an oversimplification. Aside from which, I just now realize that its deviating too much form the thread's theme, which might make things less fun for some.

Hmm. And so ontology gets thrown out the window. I'd say fine, but then epistemology would have no ontological grounding. — javra

Pure ontology by it's very nature can only arrive at mere possibility.

But how do you compare the fun factor to other what-ifs? — javra

I find that it's better to just have fun for fun's sake, and not compare one fun thing to another. But it is time to compare, I suppose.

I'm sure better one's can be found, but here's an example: What if extraterrestrials (that they exist is a good what-if for many) teleported the sun out out our galaxy and into another (teleportation is a staple what-if in many a philosophical hypothetical, typically used to gain wisdom (cough) into personal identity issues; I'm here extrapolating), this exactly seven minutes ago such that in one minute's time there won't be any sunlight? In my view, this is a far better roller-coaster ride of what-ifs than is solipsism, which is kind'a bland and boring.

I don't know if solipsism is bland and boring. Comparison is "apple's and oranges", there is no real basis of comparison. They both stand on their own merits, and whoever likes the taste will like what they are tasting.

I like your theory on the destination of the world (don't worry, I won't hold it against you that you evoked "teleportation"....we are simply conducting a thought experiment). But there is a major difference between solipsism and the notion that extraterrestrials teleported the sun out of our galaxy and into another seven minutes ago such that in one minute's time there won't be any sunlight? In one minute, everything will go dark regardless if you are a solipsist or not. It is an event, and it will become objectively verifiable. Solipsism however, is not an event, it is a mode of experience for the existing subject. For the subject, existence is a particular way, qua. everything including that which seems to possess an independent subjectivity is merely a projection of one's own sensation and cognition - one's own immediacy. There is nothing that can argue against an individual who believes that this is "the way it is", in contrast to the speculation that everything will go dark in one minute.

One can even converge the two: the same question posed but with everything now being a projection of the given solipsist.

Now you're talking! Let's do it.

"In solipsism, only the mind exists [there is only mind] ... the totality of all that you [feel, think, imagine,] and perceive, this includes all of the senses. What are the people around me other than images, sounds, and feelings?" — Darkneos

The solipsist is living a daydream in the present where there are no objects to 'exist', or events or facts to stand in their place. All feelings and sensations are self-evident and all logic is fuzzy and intuitive. There is no formal language, only a mix of words and emerging thoughts from a deeper source. There is no assumption needed about the past or the cultural and social history of the solipsist living only in the present. Time flows both ways only in the short-term past and future. Epistemology and ethics are self-serving without regard to what might at times be imagined is outside this cocoon. The solipsist is or is-not as the totality of the universe.

Counter-arguments invariably introduce their own un-solipsistic absurd strawmen to be knocked down by their proprietary elementary logic. Realist objects, universals, formalism, or logic are in no way applicable to solipsism.

I heard it said that solipsism can't be refuted because it's logically impeccable, but does that make it true? — Darkneos

It depends upon which form of solipsism you're talking about. Like any philosophical position solipsism comes in an almost infinite number of variations. The two most common being epistemological solipsism and metaphysical solipsism.

Epistemological solipsism simply maintains that nothing can be known to exist outside of one's own mind. This premise, in and of itself, would seem to be irrefutable, although, as with any philosophical position there are those who would claim that even the existence of one's own mind is ultimately unknowable.

Metaphysical solipsism on the other hand, takes the rather contradictory position of claiming that the mind isn't simply the only thing that can be known to exist, but it is in fact, the only thing that actually does exist.

What this means is, that epistemological solipsism as a statement about the limitations of the conscious mind is inherently true, but this doesn't mean that metaphysical solipsism is correspondingly true. What's true, and what can be known to be true, are often two different things.

It should always be kept in mind that solipsism in general refers to what can be known to be true, and it is only as such that it's irrefutably true.

Personally...as a solipsist myself, I find that even the epistemological definition of solipsism is a bit imprecise, because the mind can be broken down into two distinct things, consciousness...the realization that I am, and context...the personification of what I am.

Consciousness tells me that I am, and context tells me what I am, but neither of them explains why I am. It would seem that the answer to that question will always be left to either the unknown, or faith,

Consciousness tells me that I am, and context tells me what I am, but neither of them explains why I am. It would seem that the answer to that question will always be left to either the unknown, or faith, — Partinobodycular

Must have been your own choice.

That seems to be the case. There is often confusion between the metaphysical and epistemological verisons.

"I don't think that solipsism states that nothing exists besides our consciousness, it merely states that we can never know anything about what exists outside our consciousness because we will never experience anything other than our consciousness. which means there is no reason to believe other people are actually other minds, or to believe that the external world's contents will 'continue to exist' when we are not experiencing them.

but solipsism does not deny that what we are experiencing is caused by external ripples.. this is still within possibility. It can simply never be determined true or not.

solipsism is logically flawless.. but it is also uninformative in the strictest sense of the word."

Realist objects, universals, formalism, or logic are in no way applicable to solipsism. — magritte

Especially logic.

One finger cannot point at itself. — creativesoul

For solipsism there is only one. Memory, reflection, imagination, creativity are all purely solipsist activities. What's wrong with solipsism is the dogmatism attached, there is no reason to accept that there are no other philosophical worlds. For one, subjectivism is similar but broader in that it encompasses solipsism as a special case.

I heard it said that solipsism can't be refuted because it's logically impeccable, but does that make it true?

I heard that a statement can be logically valid but not true and that truth isn't the same as validity? Is that what they mean by solipsism, that it's logically perfect but it can't be known to be true?

I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept. — Darkneos

It's more like this:

Solipsism cannot be deductively falsified (we cannot prove that it is untrue).

This doesn't make it "valid" though. Validity refers to arguments with conclusions that correctly follow from their premises. There is no such argument for solipsism. It's more of a hypothetical possibility that we cannot really work with in terms of deductive reasoning.

solipsism is logically flawless.. but it is also uninformative in the strictest sense of the word. — Darkneos

Contrary to what most people believe, solipsism goes beyond merely cogito ergo sum, because in spite of the fact that I can't determine the objectivity of reality there's still more that can be known about it than simply I think therefore I am. Reality is in essence coherent..it's ordered. But the question is...why? Why is reality coherent?

Why do we live in a reality in which conscious minds are even possible, when the laws of physics tell us that the odds of such a reality existing are extremely unlikely? Is it simply a case of a fortuitous conjunction of the laws of physics, or is it instead a byproduct of the fact that consciousness is a fundamental and inescapable prerequisite for reality? Is consciousness an effect of reality's apparent order, or is consciousness actually the cause of that order? Or perhaps that's not a legitimate question at all, because it may not be that one causes the other, but rather that they are simply two aspects of the same thing?

Perhaps consciousness, and the context in which it exists, are both coherent, because they're simply two facets of the same thing.

So solipsism merely begins with "I think therefore I am", but it doesn't end there. It still has to address the same questions that every other philosophy has to address...why am I here, and why does reality look the way it does? I...as a solipsist am just as curious about the answer to those questions as you are, I've simply left open a possibility that others seem to want to dismiss. The possibility that reality is perfectly constructed to allow for the existence of consciousness, because consciousness is one of its fundamental building blocks.

What's wrong with solipsism is the dogmatism attached, there is no reason to accept that there are no other philosophical worlds. — magritte

Solipsism doesn't ask you to believe that there are no other legitimate philosophical viewpoints. Solipsists love other viewpoints. By all means tell me what you think is possible, and tell me why you think it's possible. If I'm not here to ponder why, then why be here at all?

All that I as a solipsist want, is for you to be willing to think. Let go of any preconceptions and assumptions, and just think. There's just as much beauty to be found in a well-formed argument, no matter what its philosophy, as there is in anything else. If you think that solipsists are dogmatic, then perhaps you simply haven't met the right one.

solipsism is logically flawless.. — Darkneos

And plainly false.

:roll:

Solipsists love other viewpoints — Partinobodycular

?
I presented the most positive and strongest possible position that I could imagine for a solipsist to hold and to defend against any critique.
But if you are a convinced solipsist then how can you also allow for incompatible philosophies?

Actually as far as solipsism goes that is pretty much it. I think therefor I am. That's all, there is a reason it's called a dead end.

"

"I don't think that solipsism states that nothing exists besides our consciousness, it merely states that we can never know anything about what exists outside our consciousness because we will never experience anything other than our consciousness. which means there is no reason to believe other people are actually other minds, or to believe that the external world's contents will 'continue to exist' when we are not experiencing them. — Darkneos

"I don't think that solipsism states that nothing exists besides our consciousness, it merely states that we can never know anything about what exists outside our consciousness because we will never experience anything other than our consciousness. which means there is no reason to believe other people are actually other minds, or to believe that the external world's contents will 'continue to exist' when we are not experiencing them. — Darkneos

Experience our consciousness...

Muddle.

Actually as far as solipsism goes that is pretty much it. I think therefor I am. That's all, there is a reason it's called a dead end. — Darkneos

If Mind/Consciousness is the only Reality, R, as the Whole/Unity, then its message in our faux reality, r, as its essence/multiplicity/fragmentation is still that of ‘substance’ operating perfectly according to laws as if it were truly substance here.

While there would be no live band playing the Music of the Spheres due to the implementation/messenger of a kind of a recording/transmutation of R into r, via R, the result can be utilized the same, a difference that would seem to make no difference, albeit simulating r would seem to be a lot more complicated than if true substance in r did all the work itself.

It’s such that if I use an mp3 player the music is still the message, regardless of that messenger.

How is that muddled? Though consciousness implies there is something to be conscious of. Sensation implies input from externality. Though solipsism would argue that all of sensation is a product of the mind, well some forms.

But Western Philosophy sort of dug it's own hole here:

"Western philosophy from Descartes up through Kant seemed to be going in a direction of increasing solipsism. Subject and object became further and further separated, and philosophers became more and more convinced that there was no way of knowing anything outside of them. In the 20th century, Heidegger rejected this notion as silly, noting that consciousness is defined by its being-in-the-world -- its utter dependence on outer objects to have any experience at all. Yet this concept of mind as social relations has, over the 20th century, led to a kind of different solipsism -- one of language. Wittgenstein really paved the way for this with his posthumously published Philosophical Investigations(in many ways a rebuttal of his earlier work, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus). Post-modernists and post-structuralists explored how language and shared meaning don't describe reality so much as they create it. There was an emerging sense that the individual is nothing but a series of social relations -- a cultural construct with no real identity of their own. In this sense, it was a bit of an antithesis to solipsism. Rather than wondering if others are real, the more pertinent question becomes whether oneself is real. But if there's one thing I know from Hegel, it's that whenever there's a thesis and an antithesis, there's got to be a synthesis."

Solipsists love other viewpoints — Partinobodycular

.
But if you are a convinced solipsist then how can you also allow for incompatible philosophies? — magritte

Again, we need to be clear about the difference between epistemological solipsism and metaphysical solipsism. Epistemological solipsism isn't concerned at all with what's possible, it's solely concerned with what's knowable. If you want to argue that reality was created in six days, then an epistemological solipsist is perfectly fine with that...no problem. If you want to argue that reality is nothing but a computer simulation, then epistemological solipsism is perfectly fine with that too. Both of those arguments are perfectly legitimate as far as epistemological solipsism is concerned.

Epistemological solipsism is solely concerned with what's knowable, but beyond that, it says almost nothing at all about what's possible. Thus epistemological solipsism is compatible with just about anything.

Now that having been said, that doesn't mean that metaphysical solipsism is wrong. Reality may in fact exist only in your mind, but unlike epistemological solipsism, metaphysical solipsism isn't "logically flawless". It may in fact be wrong.

But therein lies the beauty of epistemological solipsism...it's compatible with just about anything...except dogma. You can believe whatever you want, but you cannot know...what you cannot know.

difference between epistemological solipsism and metaphysical solipsism — Partinobodycular

Thank you, I have only considered metaphysical solipsism which is an entirely different rabbit's hole. Descartes pulled a rabbit out and asked what that looks like to standard philosophy of his day and came up with dualism and Early Modern enlightenment. To today's standard epistemology the mind is still an unresolved puzzle because it does not exist in a philosophical sense.

According to this take, what is knowable needs to be publicly justifiable true belief, and solipsism denies all of these conditions as meaningless. The notion of classical epistemological knowledge is under attack and not solipsism. Solipsism gains its strength from its soundness as well as from being impervious to dogmatic refutation. To say that it is not 'logical' is a fallacy of circularity, it is the critic who presupposes classical language and logic universally for every rabbit hole then concludes that anything that denies this presupposition is necessarily false.

Again, we need to be clear about the difference between epistemological solipsism and metaphysical solipsism. — Partinobodycular

I’m only interested in a discussion if you don’t go about waiving off logical conclusions when they don’t suit your fancy, as was previously done here:

You [as a first-person point of view] can intend X and not X [at the same time and in the same respect] by simply waving it away as a figment of your mind. — Darkneos

--------

1) Solipsism is the position that in the whole of existence only a single self occurs, or else is known to occur.

2) An epistemological solipsism that rejects metaphysical solipsism thereby rejects that only a single self occurs or, else, is known to occur; and can thereby affirm the ontological co-occurrence of multiple epistemological solipsists in the world (a world which is granted to be strictly constituted of mind). Regardless of particulars ascribed to these others, though, to denounce metaphysical solipsism is to uphold the reality of multiple coexisting selves.

3) However, the position that multiple selves (be they fellow epistemological solipsists or not) co-occur and interact directly contradicts (1), thereby making the notion of solipsism nonsensical.

4) Therefore, for solipsism as concept to hold any form of cogent meaning whatsoever, solipsism must be one of metaphysical solipsism.

Where do you find disagreement in this?