If there is only one mind, your mind, then language is an illusion. Especially if you believe that there can be no private language. If language is an illusion, then there can be no propositions to form an argument. The fact that there is a language, this in itself, would seem to support the conclusion that solipsism is false. So, solipsism seems self-refuting.

I thought I proved ... something. — Agent Smith

I take up your challenge. :smile:

The argument is:
1) Only things that we're 100% certain exists exist.
2) The only thing I'm 100% certain exists is me (re cogito).
3) Ergo, I alone exist.

There are two parts to statement 1). The first part is "Only things that we're 100% certain exists". Name this first part X. The second part is "X exist".

The problem is what exactly is "exist" referring to.

As regards the first part of statement 1), as the only things that I'm 100% certain exist are my thoughts, such as my thought about apples, therefore, exists must be referring to what exists in my mind.

As regards the second part of statement 1), X exist, what is exist referring to, what is in my mind or what is outside my mind, apples existing as thoughts in my mind or apples existing in the world independently of my mind.

If exist is referring to what is in my mind, then 1) is tautological, in that thoughts about apples that exist in my mind exist in my mind as thoughts about apples. If exist is referring to what is outside my mind, then 1) is saying that the things that I am thinking about, such as apples, exist outside my mind. But this is an unjustified statement.

Therefore, statement 1) is the problem, in that it is either tautological or unjustified.

I'm a Pyrrhonist. :smile:

I'm a Pyrrhonist — Agent Smith

That's a very un-Pyrrhonist thing to say, you sound very certain about it.

That's a very un-Pyrrhonist thing to say, you sound very certain about it — RussellA

I'm not certain and hence I'm a Pyrrhonist.

I'm not certain and hence I'm a Pyrrhonist. — Agent Smith

Are you certain that you're a Pyrrhomist ?

Are you certain that you're a Pyrrhomist ? — RussellA

Yes.

But as I quoted above, those who try to prove it just end up making a whole bunch of assumptions they can't prove, like events only happen if you're looking at it which is nonsense, otherwise car crashes wouldnt happen. — Darkneos

Hopefully, the following argument uses no assumptions anyone would disagree with.

An argument for Solipsism

Everything I perceive in the world outside my mind happened in the past, whether the position of the moon or a leaf falling from a tree.

On the one hand, as I am always perceiving something that happened in the past, I am perceiving something that no longer exists, and to perceive something that no longer exists could be said to be perceiving an illusion.

On the other hand, I can imagine that what I am perceiving in the past continues to exist into the present. But what I am imagining is not the actual thing but a fictional account of it, and to imagine something that may or may not exist could be said to be perceiving a fiction.

Either way, everything I perceive existing in the world is either an illusion from the past or a fiction about the future.

Solipsism holds that only one's own mind is sure to exist. If my only knowledge about what exists in the world is either an illusion or a fiction, how can I be sure about any existence outside my mind, and isn't this what solipsism is saying.

It's metaphysical solipsism not the "how can we know" one, because we really can't. WE can't even know if we exist, like I said.

Berkley can argue against and unobserved and unimagined tree all he wants it doesn't make it any less real. It's also why idealism died out I guess and why we follow science. The "if I don't see it it didn't happen or isn't real" is one of the easiest things to disprove.

Everything else you said is irrelevant to the topic. — Darkneos

You appear to have false preconceptions regarding Berkeley's position. I'd recommend studying the SEP article before continuing discussion.

Faulty premises. Also the word illusion is doing a lot of heavy lifting as the only way illusion holds any sort of weight is if you know what’s reality, which under solipsism you could never do.

Also everything you are perceiving is in the now. Not the past. Even a memory of the past is still in the now. You aren’t imagining a fictional account either but the real thing.

Without any reality as a comparison the word “illusion is meaningless”. Solipsism ASSUMES one’s own mind is sure to exist. While in the process using words, concepts, etc that originate outside of the mind. Solipsism fails to prove the existence is a mind that it assumes to know for sure exists.

None of your points follow either and they assume too much, much like my original post guy did in his link.

Like I said before all arguments for it boil to nonsense since you have to deny solipsism to prove it and rely on things outside of it.

I don’t I’m well aware of his position and how he’s wrong given modern science discoveries. There is a reason idealism fell out, part of it being that it always leads to solipsism, ie “you’re all that exists”. He could only get around that by asserting some god mind which isn’t convincing.

simulation hypothesis doesn’t cause us to question what is real. It’s an assertion with nothing to prove it, ergo junk.

Plus unless you can show a clear difference between a simulation and the real thing then they’re the same and the point is null.

Solipsism isn’t a mental disorder either. Again you are inventing things to make it other than it is.

Technically it is not considered a "mental disorder" but it is part of diagnostic criteria like introversion, nihilism, antagonism, paranoia etc. That it is not a "mental disorder" doesn't negate it as mental disorder. Someone would hold their semantic ground that a mental disorder is the name of the phenomenon, but if someone can be diagnosed 'schizo' for being antagonistic, nihilistic, introverted and having solipsistic delusion it is mental disorder.

As for denying any simulation hypothesis from the soul to mind to computer does not cause someone to doubt what is real, compared to direct realism then perhaps Plato and Decartes are not as adept as you.

As for denying any simulation hypothesis from the soul to mind to computer does not cause someone to doubt what is real, compared to direct realism then perhaps Plato and Decartes are not as adept as you. — introbert

There's no reason to take it seriously. Unless they can demonstrate said alternate reality it's junk. Even then it wouldn't make this less real. You'd just have two realities. I mean alternate realities are a common trope in media today, even cartoons do it, so I don't see why it would make you question anything. Seems interesting rather than scary.

Technically it is not considered a "mental disorder" but it is part of diagnostic criteria like introversion, nihilism, antagonism, paranoia etc. That it is not a "mental disorder" doesn't negate it as mental disorder. Someone would hold their semantic ground that a mental disorder is the name of the phenomenon, but if someone can be diagnosed 'schizo' for being antagonistic, nihilistic, introverted and having solipsistic delusion it is mental disorder. — introbert

You're getting off track...again. It's far from my original post.

Again, sorry if I derailed. I understand you want to talk about the view that your mind or whatever conjures all reality, and if it can be proven true.

That and this reply under it:

Solipsism is not a choice, human beings or a human being is even in strict scientific terms a subjective entity, a subject, everything that happens to me is in my own subjective bubble. But, this is not where i see where the problem is at. The problem comes when, if you even come to the realization that solipsism is true, and that no event can exist without you consciously being subjectively aware of it, why would a solipsist or any person, put himself inside a simulated reality that basically restricts him in his wishes, fantasies, and absolute freedom. If you are infact first and foremost, outside of the simulated reality and have absolute freedom to do with yourself whatever you want, restricting yourself to a simulation even if it is self imposed, inside one’s own mind is really hard to understand. Because you would basically go into a span of about 80 years, experiencing even suffering, physical or psychological, being restricted in what you can do, example, no absolute control or freedom over matter, or the mind-matter relationship, i agree that it is hard to understand subjectivity and its logic that way. But, still, that does not negate solipsism. Because you also get to experience amazing beautiful things and extend your freedom further to the point of physical liberation or end which results in death, but you only end your own mind simulation. The whole process of solipsism is that every minute, date, month, year and second is a carefully planned event that must ultimately lead to absolute freedom, that is the end point of solipsism, to be able to do whatever you want, and without your subjectivity in that state ever ending.

I look at it in a very simple and practical way. Solipsism is the potential of a person to exist in absolute illusion. It can be ironic on that the belief is opposed by other minds. That illusion could be a delusion, or it can be from mis/disinformation from other people. The biggest issues are not about the affairs of the world, but of this solipsistic simulation that reality is completely the product of each individual mind. The solipsistic simulation everyone has of the world is indistinct from their concept of self. The world and the self are experienced as one, but the body separates a person from the other objects in the world. I reduce solipsism to a conflict between ego/self/I vs. other minds as it seems through interaction with other minds that the pure solipsistic state of infancy is divided into other minds. How are other minds experienced by a sole originating solipsistic simulation of reality? From my examination of self a certain essence is extracted from that other mind, their expectations and rules and codes about how they construct their own simulation and how they would like you to construct yours. This is the issue I have with philosophy/ psychiatry in that as subjective states are objectified they create a target for opposing minds. Psychiatry to me, I reference my solipsistic simulation, creates a 'them' that is against solipsistic simulation, transcendence, etc. in favor of a functionalist body of individuals. Just as it is convenient for the communitarian that the disorderly simulation of the criminal can be used to promote their fascism, the disordered simulation of the 'mentally ill' can be used to slowly and methodically target what they interpret to be mental disorder and produce countervailing social types (those who target and control those those things in self and others). It has become a more legitimized form of medicine after ww2 (ironic coincidence?) with ways of tranquilizing the body, but it is a front against the transcendant solipsistic simulation. It is the confederacy against disorganized individual freedom. A confederate is a social-psychology term and the most important concept to understand.

Like I said before all arguments for it boil to nonsense since you have to deny solipsism to prove it and rely on things outside of it. — Darkneos

This is the problem of negative singular existence statements, where in order to deny the existence of a given individual, one must assume the existence of that very individual.

Faulty premises — Darkneos

Where is the faulty premise ?

My premise was "Everything I perceive in the world outside my mind happened in the past, whether the position of the moon or a leaf falling from a tree."

It takes time for light to travel from an object to my eyes, whether the 2.54 million years from the Andromeda Galaxy, the 8min 20sec from the Sun, the 1.3 sec from the Moon, as well as the leaf falling from the tree.

The time taken for light to travel from a falling leaf to my eyes may well be small, but it is finite. Pragmatically, it may make no difference to my daily life, but philosophically it does.

Philosophically, it means that it is impossible for me to have any knowledge of what exists in the present outside my mind. I may strongly infer what exists, but it is still an inference, and as only an inference, I can never be sure beyond doubt. I can only ever be sure of what exists in my mind in the present .

As I can only exist in the present, the past no longer exists. Therefore, the only other thing that can exist is the present outside my mind. But as I can only know the present outside my mind by inference, and as an inference is something that I may be wrong about, then is something that I cannot be sure about.

Therefore, the only thing that I can be sure about is the existence of my own mind, which is an argument for Epistemological Solipsism.

Food for thought: An atheist has to be a solipsist

Why?

The existence of god, being as rational as possible, is in the hands of the skeptic downgraded to may exist. Yet, atheists immediately take the extreme step to god doesn't exist.

Likewise, we've been able to demote other non-self things to may exist (per solipsism) and il est de voir que ... the other does not exist. Solipsism is then just being an atheist with regard to non-self. :cool:

I would agree that athiest=solipsist in that god is a potential other mind, and the solipsist tendancy is to argue against these to find true self. I'm solipsistic but I accept god as another object/concept like any other, but I dont have any piece of gods mind in me.

There is no may be.

That's fine. My mind is 100% independent of god.

That's fine. My mind is 100% independent of god. — introbert

:up: On a more serious note, solipsism seems connected to Chalmers' hard problem of consciousness.

All philosophy is about it.

That doesn’t even follow…

Like I said, pro solipsism arguments are nonsense.

Not true, those facts don’t matter philosophically, it’s all in the present and all these things are happening outside your mind as you’re taking things in (by your admission). You would have to prove your mind is the maker and receiver of these stimuli and I know you can’t, nor can anyone.

But again as stated you can’t be sure of your mind in the present let alone “you”. The fact you’re using leaned language that you got outside you is enough to blow that claim away. Try making any argument without language let alone the concepts to argue for solipsism, you can’t.

The past does exist, just not in the way you think. The present is also not an inference either. It exists apart from you. The only way for your argument to make any sense is to axiomatically claim that your mind and you don’t need a cause, and at that point you’ve already lost as that would violate Occam’s razor. Why assume you and your mind are cause less when it’s more logical to go with realism or the default view.

There really is no logic that can reasonably jump to solipsism. Just because we can’t be “sure” (and to be frank we can’t be sure of anything so that’s not a metric to use) doesn’t mean it’s all in your head or you’re the only conscious thing. That’s not what explains our observations so it doesn’t logically follow.

Like I said, faulty premises that assume too many things they can’t prove.

To repeat, arguments for solipsism eventually boil down to nonsense. And it’s why it’s pure faith, nothing more.

All philosophy is about it. — introbert

Makes a mental note of that. :up:

That doesn’t even follow…

Like I said, pro solipsism arguments are nonsense. — Darkneos

Not so mon ami. Solipsism is skepticism's piéce de résistance, but skeptics can do a lot better if you catch me drift.

It's actually skepticism's greatest failure, since in trying to winnow it down to what can be known for certain ends up making a TON of other assumptions in the process to get there to the point where it gets absurd. It would in fact be less skeptical to assume an external reality.

Again solipsism fails Occams Razor.

I believe you have it backwards. Skepticism is about not making & checking (unfounded) assumptions.

Not making and checking unfounded (which is already a red flag as what is considered unfounded is debatable) assumptions while in the process using unfounded assumptions.

They don’t even know if they’re thinking or if they exist, both of which are unfounded:

https://youtu.be/SRwMFjCoOUc