Well, if jgill cant help . . . — universeness

The late Dr McCarty seems to have been a man of many talents, including studies of logic. Beyond me, I fear. The length of this piece is challenging on its own. I didn't get far. @TonesinDeepFreeze might find it interesting. The idea of relating math to solipsism is bizarre (to me, at least).

I apologize for that. I have no earthly idea what it means by the math so I can't really comment. I just read the parts with the text but it didn't make much sense.

A therapist is not going to help you with a philosophical problem like solipsism, though they can help with reasons for turning our human condition of being separate from others into an intellectual problem where we think we are lacking some knowledge. I would suggest both, especially given that you will come back to it again and again, but I t doesn't sound like you are ready to work on the philosophy yet. I ask that you not post here again unless you are serious, as you must realize you've wasted the time of earnest people actually trying to do philosophy here. If you continue in this vein, I will ask that you be banned until you can convince the admins of your sincerity in wanting to do the work. Good luck. — Antony Nickles

I've tried to do that work but I just can't. I have to ask people to help me out because philosophy has always been something daunting to me that I can't seem to get around. I try to do the work but I guess, to put it bluntly, I'm not smart enough to get it.

What I’m telling you is, yes, what leads to the conclusion of solipsism is true about our human condition. But having certainty that others exist, knowing that, is not the only consequence of the truth of the skepticism that leads to solipsism, as knowledge of the other and the world is not our only connection. — Antony Nickles

What I meant is that do you mean we can’t really be certain of anything or that solipsism is true? I’m struggling to figure out what you mean.

Yes, we cannot be factually certain of others and the world (except math, though that only makes the desire worse) and that the results of solipsism can be real. I suggest you take this seriously and start working to understand the philosophy as well as take steps to make sure you are safe. I have requested your account be reviewed to give you time to do so. Good luck.

we cannot be factually certain of others and the world — Antony Nickles

Do you not see the strangeness here ? The way this bites itself ?

It's a strange phenomenon, the way this kind of skepticism that speaks (not you personally) thoughtlessly projects itself with an almost infinite arrogance about what others cannot know.

Somehow O somehow the skeptic trapped behind screens which might always be lying...knows that I too, if I somehow exist against all odds, must definitely also be trapped in a world of lying screens.

O ye skeptic of little faith and less humility ! Have ye not thought that I may yet walk with God beyond those walls that ye take for the world entire ?

I'm joking. I don't claim to walk with God. But wouldn't a real skeptic (in genuine doubt rather than theory of knowledge hubris) just not know much about me or about God ?

Yes, the claim of the skeptic is about the entire human condition. Finding a logical inconsistency in what you take their claim to mean is not to dismiss that our knowledge of the other is inadequate nor to resolve the real outcomes of living in the grip of skepticism. We believe ourselves more powerful than we are if we think our knowledge of the other is sufficient.

But wouldn't a real skeptic (in genuine doubt rather than theory of knowledge hubris) just not know much about me — green flag

But the skeptic wants to be sure about you or deny you entirely. Granted, "exist", is a loaded word, but, non-metaphysically, we are still talking about you not mattering, me not wanting to be responsible to you personally, to acknowledge your claim on me, thus the skeptic's insistence on science, which draws its conclusions regardless of the individual; and their need for the world to be "real", creating frameworks like “objective”, “reality”, “consciousness”, etc.

Do I just message them or something like that? — Darkneos

The late Dr McCarty seems to have been a man of many talents, including studies of logic. Beyond me, I fear. The length of this piece is challenging on its own. I didn't get far. TonesinDeepFreeze might find it interesting. The idea of relating math to solipsism is bizarre (to me, at least). — jgill

Mr Gill is a maths professor!
I hope he does not mind me pasting the following paragraph from his profile:
"Retired professor of mathematics from a branch of a state university. I've published some research but nothing of any real consequence. I continue to explore certain elementary dynamical systems in the complex plane because it's enjoyable to do so."

Surely his last sentence above should speak volumes to you.
Also if he find's this document cumbersome to dissect then YOU nor I certainly, can't make heads or tails of it! So you are all twisted up about a maths document you have NO understanding of.
Come on friend, you are self-flagillating here.
Perhaps as @jgill suggested, @TonesInDeepFreeze may be able to assist you further.

Thank you for your input, I appreciate your assistance.

As a practice, mathematics is a family-resemblance of language games, whose premises are usually in conflict, in part due to the fact that they do not generally share the same logical assumptions regarding the justifications of a mathematical proof. Disagreements among mathematicians and logicians have concerned whether mathematical truth is reducible to the constructive notion theorem proving , which are disagreements that parallel, and often replicate, the historical disagreements between realists and idealists.

Intuitionistic logic, which corresponds to the mainstream Cartesian conception of computation in terms of the Church Turing Thesis, or equivalently, the behaviour of the ideal solitary computer, might be said to be solipsistic, since this logic makes the following assumptions:

1) Truth and theorem-proving are equivalent.

2) "Computation" is describable in terms of the solitary activity of an ideal individual making up rules and following them consistently, without any interaction with his environment playing a role in the meaning of "computation", whereby theorem-proving is considered to be a tautological exercise.

Classical logic on the other hand, accepts 2), but drops assumption 1) by it's appeal to The Law of Excluded Middle, which allows it to infer theorems for which there is no step-wise constructive proof.

This is the reason why many mathematicians are platonists; By rejecting assumption 1 they reject the idea that mathematics is a product of their minds, and yet by accepting assumption 2 they are also forced into rejecting the idea that meaning of mathematics is contingent upon events in the real world. The only way they can resolve the resulting dilemma is by positing an external platonic world of mathematical meaning.

Since the seventies, Computer science has slowly begun to break free of the the cartesian conception of computation, by questioning, if not rejecting, assumption 2), mostly as a result of needing to invent new logics for dealing with the empirical contingencies of computer-program IO. See for instance, the reactive-programming paradigm that concerns the problem of how to write programs to consistently reason with input-streams of data that are potentially-infinite and outside the control of the program.

, are you calling us mindless zombies? How rude. :)

Ethics sidelines solipsism. Morals are incompatible with solipsism. Concern for others renders solipsism irrelevant.

• uncyclopedia
• wikipedia
• iep
• sep

Anyway, it seems more like an emotional/psychological problem here, than philosophical?

That doesn’t help at all nor get around the issue I’m having
3d — Darkneos

That's fair. Im sorry I didn't adequately explain/provide enlightenment on the topic at hand. What is the key issue you face so I might come up with something solutional or at least a decent counterargument/view for you to mull over?

It's not so much the math as it is these things in the link:

2. More generally, there can be no deductive refutation of this solipsism
employing only premises a committed solipsist would accept: all logically
correct derivations from solipsistically true premises lead to conclusions
that are solipsistically true as well. Any route to a successful refutation of
solipsism must travel via nondeductive inferential paths.

4. Every solipsistic theory that is strict – as defined below – and axiomatic
is the close translational analogue of an axiomatic nonsolipsistic theory. If
the solipsist can axiomatize her nonsolipsistic theories, she can do the same
with their solipsistic correlates.

Any axiomatic theory and set of axioms for that theory in the non‑
solipsistic language can be carried over into the solipsistic language
as a theory with corresponding axioms, provided that the latter
theory is strict. Importantly, it is easy to argue – see the reply to
the third interpretation of the Private Language Argument – that
basic mathematical theories are all strict. Hence, a solipsist can
avail herself of, say, Peano/Dedekind Arithmetic together with its
familiar set of axioms.

These three parts of the link which when read together sounds to me like all paths lead to solipsism, though I'm very doubtful about my interpretation.

I just needed help understanding if he's saying what I think he's saying, if he's not then I can dump all this behind me and let it go. But I'm asking all over and haven't been able to find someone who either can or will do it.

I just needed help understanding if he's saying what I think he's saying — Darkneos

So all you need to do now, is describe EXACTLY what you think he is saying.
Do it sentence by sentence and then 'we' can respond to your concerns!

Well what I think he means is that every axiom you make as a non solipsist can apply to a solipsist. And if the premises are solipsistically true then the conclusion is solipsistically true. So that would mean every axiom would lead to solipsism.

Yet I’m very doubtful about my interpretation of this as it doesn’t seem to match other areas in his work.

I know people told me to stop looking but I couldn’t help it ( I know I know) and came across this:

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-chief-applications-of-philosophical-solipsism/answer/David-Moore-408

Though I think I am doing better since this doesn’t seem like a good answer. There are no applications to it. It’s a dead end. The assertion is the conclusion .

Though I disagree with his use of the word verify in the answer since you can’t verify it. I do agree with him that it is useless though since…well you can’t do anything with it. At least other philosophies have ACTUAL applications to them, namely ethics.

But what do y’all think of it?

@Darkneos, is it not true that new things happen to you? Like just new situations, but also new ideas (that you *cough* get from others), or something new that you learn of or encounter. Say, of your memories, how much of the remembered is of your own (conscious or willed) making? I certainly find the world intruding, and in a way that I can't miss.
Do you ever get something wrong? Well, how could it be wrong if it's your creation in the first place?
You can't do just anything, right? I, for one, can't just leap from the front yard and fly to the Moon (like Superman); I'll just assume you can't either. Something else, the world, is imposing itself on you.
If you're thoroughly applying skepticism, then you might also want to apply it to skepticism itself now and then.
I suppose thinking it's all you, there aren't other minds, is presumptuous, maybe arrogant, surely rude. :)

It's not me. Somehow despite all of this I still truly believe that other people exist, have other minds, etc.

Though the accusations of being arrogant or rude aren't points to use against someone with solipsism. At it's heart is the real issue that we cannot be truly certain, and I can empathize with that fear at first hit.

To call people like that ignorant, callous, narcissists, rude, etc, is to me just being foolish.

Solipsism doesn't have to be a playground where you can do whatever you want (though I think the justifications some use to argue for that are just nonsense and it gets to a point where they're just clutching at straws to prop it up).

We cannot "get out of our own heads" so to speak, so that is why no one can prove solipsism or disprove it.

That said despite what I've read in the links and all that I'm still firmly committed to other people existing, outside world, etc. But it's challenging to keep that faith.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-arguments-against-solipsism/answer/Klaus-Kellerwessel

Actually going through some answers is helping me see how ridiculous it is. Especially stuff like this. Stuff I perceive is a part of me? Last I checked my pillow wasn’t part of me, despite my strongest wishes.

Well what I think he means is that every axiom you make as a non solipsist can apply to a solipsist. And if the premises are solipsistically true then the conclusion is solipsistically true.
Yet I’m very doubtful about my interpretation of this as it doesn’t seem to match other areas in his work. — Darkneos

Not exactly a sentence by sentence breakdown of what you think the text you are concerned about is saying, but taking your response at face value:

An axiom:
As a noun, is a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true, for example, "the axiom that sport builds character"
Similar concepts are, accepted truth, general truth, dictum, truism, principle.
So quite a range of nuances in that list of similar concepts.

In MATHEMATICS:
An axiom is a statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based.
Important to appreciate here then the words 'abstractly defined structure.'

This reminds me of ideas like 'virtual reality' or 'virtual particles.'
They are ABSTRACT MODELS of reality BUT THEY ARE NOT REAL. Solipsism is the same.
In quantum physics, it is said that 'virtual particles,' pop in and pop out OF EXISTENCE, in the EMPTY vacuum of space. Virtual particles ARE NOT REAL, they are mathematical models of what is happening in REALITY. Something is popping in and out of existence, in what we currently label empty space but we can only model, what it really is. Solipsism merely MODELS a POSSIBILITY, dictated by logic, that cannot be PROVED wrong, BUT it also cannot be demonstrated as REAL. It's the same for the concept of god or infinity. You CANNOT demonstrate the biggest number, BUT you also CANNOT PROVE, the biggest number DOES NOT EXIST.
It would therefore be irrational for someone to 'fixate' on the fact that you cannot demonstrate infinity.
This thought, would trigger my friends bipolar 'mind quakes' or 'shutdowns,' as he used to label them. He is now able to rationalise away, his urge, to cause his brain to 'livelock,' in mad counting modes, that he could not control, until he was almost 'fitting' or 'quaking.'

You are doing something akin to this imo, with your irrational thinking on solipsism. YOU CAN 'retrain' your brain to simply 'reject' your old ways of thinking about solipsism and train your brain to accept the CORRECT alternative conclusion about solipsism.
1. Solipsism cannot be DISPROVEN.
2. Solipsism cannot be PROVEN.
Retraining your brain to accept that statement 2 above has far more supporting evidence than statement 1 is your path to a more peaceful mindset, that does not suffer from regular intolerable mind quakes.

Hello Darkneos,

I am sorry that you are being tormented by solipsism: I hope that you find a way to overcome the negative impact it has had on you!

Let me try to give a brief “remedy”, but let me first note that this is from my perspective (so I am importing my philosophical positions): do what you will with it.

Firstly, one must understand what aspects of solipsism are “irrefutable” and which aren’t. In its most generic form, it is the view that only one’s “self” exists, that only one’s “mind” exists, or that only one’s “consciousness” exists (or all three)—but these are entirely different things! A “self” is what one is identical to, a “mind” is a faculty of reason, and consciousness can be described as awareness and sensibility. Therefore, to me, a “self” is a will, a “mind” is the faculty of reason which gets its obligations from oneself (i.e., a will), and “consciousness” is just the ability to or/and actuality of sensations and awareness.

The solipist could be arguing that they can only know of their own “self” (which is a will), but, in that case, we can clearly acquire from our experience that there are other wills (regardless of whether they stem back, ultimately, to one will or many). They could be arguing that they can only know of their own “mind” (e.g., do other people have thoughts?), but we can infer very reasonably that other people think (and thusly have a mind): just ask me to do a hard (or honestly even easy) math problem and take note of how long it takes me to come up with an answer. They could be arguing that they can only know that they are “conscious” (i.e., aware and sensing), but, to me, we can know they are aware: just watch a human for 30 minutes and note their concerns, as “concern” is what is fundamentally awareness; and we can know people sense: watch someone get stabbed. However, what the solipsist is going to note, which is the irrefutable part, is simply that one cannot know that all of these observable reactions and interactions with other people (previously described) aren’t a product of something other than what we would infer (e.g., how do you know that they all aren’t mechanical robots—philosophical zombies?); and I can’t say with absolute certainty that they are wrong.

But let’s think about it for a second: I can provide extreme skepticism to virtually anything. For example, let’s say you are in the company of two people who are essentially foil characters (i.e., they have complete opposite personalities) and I point out to you that you can’t be 100% sure that their wills aren’t ultimately one will (i.e., how do you know that, in reality in the sense of what transcends our current experience of the two, that they aren’t really a part of one will expressing itself differently?). Can you refute it? No. However, can you really ever know either way? No. Can you know that they have two different personalities and are embodied by two different bodies? Yes. Isn’t that enough to treat them like two different wills? These kinds of extreme skepticism simply removed the ability to be absolutely certain about empirical things, but that doesn’t mean it is valid to affirm their claims (e.g., just because it is logically possible that they are one will, deep down in reality, doesn’t entail that it is the most cogent belief to accept).

Likewise, let’s say they are actually right (that there are philosophical zombies, with no minds, no consciousness, and let’s say no wills of their own): does that change your experience of them? No. Are you justified in doing abhorrent things to them now that you know? No. Are you alone?. NO: you still interact with them, can talk to them, they can relate to you, they can love you, you can love them—and why would it matter that you are able to think of your own accord while they cannot?

Secondly, the fact that you think solipsism is true and that it is making you suffer are two separate things: and the latter, I would argue, is the only problem. Right now, I am presuming that you are thinking that the solution to eradicating your torment (suffering) is to find a refutation of solipsism, but that is no permanent cure. “Suffering” is the “attachment to what is outside of one’s control”, and it appears as though you are attached to the idea that other people can think of their own accord, can feel (in the sense of consciousness), etc.; but you can’t control the truth pertaining thereto--so why fret about it? Now, I know that fret is not something one can just shut off on a whim, or on a thought, but I would strongly suggest looking into stoic philosophy (such seneca and marcus aurelius) and start practicing and working at detaching from what is outside of your control: just because the world is a particular way which is outside of your control, does not mean you need to suffer about it. Again, I totally understand that you can’t control it immediately: but you can indirectly work towards reshaping yourself to eliminate that suffering (if that makes any sense).

With respect to depersonalization and derealization: I also had that. I no longer do (in a unhealthy sense) because I detached from everything outside of my control and realized that what is real is experience (the direct): it is acquiring answers to transcendent (and unattainable) questions which torment us the most. “We suffer more often in imagination than in reality” – Seneca.

There’s much more to say, but hopefully this provides a bit of insight.
Bob

Path number 2 has been pretty helpful in overcoming this. I'm also pretty sure that I have an obsession with it at the moment, same with anything else. IT's based on the thought that if I am rejecting it then I am denying truth because it hurts me, though I'm seeing that is just a trick my brain does.

So you're saying I got the definition of axiom confused here?

There is one that I grazed that my brain keeps trying to pull me back to:

https://vernonpress.com/file/7502/e19b0d05052691e5d1fa06f3a2939a5f/1543562412.pdf

But so far I'm able to resist the urges and what they say to me. Though that is why I ask other people to look at this stuff in my stead because I know what happens if I try to, and I'm hoping someone could take a look at the above. I do appreciate people doing this for me though, I just more or less know how my brain works.

I know that people ask me to do the work when it comes to philosophy but when I try reading stuff I get sucked in and just assume that the person who wrote is right and that this is new data entering my brain thus rendering old data obsolete. I have to remind myself philosophy isn't science, different metrics and methods.

Likewise, let’s say they are actually right (that there are philosophical zombies, with no minds, no consciousness, and let’s say no wills of their own): does that change your experience of them? No. Are you justified in doing abhorrent things to them now that you know? No. Are you alone?. NO: you still interact with them, can talk to them, they can relate to you, they can love you, you can love them—and why would it matter that you are able to think of your own accord while they cannot? — Bob Ross

I would push back and say that if they were philosophical zombies then yes that would change my experience of them.

I'm fine more and more with the idea that solipsism is in provable/disprovable etc. I just struggle when I see papers like the ones I linked so far making me doubt if I am wrong. Again I'm pretty doubtful about my interpretation of the math one but I'm not versed in math to check what he's saying. The vernon press one I'm not touching either, though my brain keeps obsessing over bits and lines in that text and it's really hard for me to reject the COMPULSION to open old wounds again. It's also making me think that he proved it true as well.

I understand what people mean by doing the work when it comes to philosophical inquiry, but that doesn't work for everyone and definitely not for me. Not only can I not read those papers (TBH I'm surprised I managed that much from the math one) but I don't get the arguments they use. It's why I need other people to help because they get it, I'm (to be blunt) not smart enough to.

It's why I need their help with the papers so I can put it all behind me.

Though I will say Seneca was right, we do suffer more in imagination than reality.

Path number 2 has been pretty helpful in overcoming this. — Darkneos

Then follow it, stay on it, it leads to a better place for you!

So you're saying I got the definition of axiom confused here? — Darkneos

No, you have the significance of such wrong. An axiom, a syllogism, a hypothesis, etc.
THESE ARE LITTLE STORIES!!! which DOES NOT MAKE THEM TRUE!!!
Solipsism has NOT been PROVEN to be true, and it never will be!
So, let your mind make peace with that!

I would push back and say that if they were philosophical zombies then yes that would change my experience of them.

How would it change your experience of them?

Again I'm pretty doubtful about my interpretation of the math one but I'm not versed in math to check what he's saying.

I reviewed your first, initial board post and I don’t see any linked papers making mathematical claims about solipsism: did I just miss it? What math argument are you referring to?

The vernon press one I'm not touching either, though my brain keeps obsessing over bits and lines in that text and it's really hard for me to reject the COMPULSION to open old wounds again. It's also making me think that he proved it true as well.

It sounds like to me the issue is not that it might be true, but that, for some reason, you would be tormented by the fact that it is true. Why does it bother you that it could be true?

I understand what people mean by doing the work when it comes to philosophical inquiry, but that doesn't work for everyone and definitely not for me. Not only can I not read those papers (TBH I'm surprised I managed that much from the math one) but I don't get the arguments they use. It's why I need other people to help because they get it, I'm (to be blunt) not smart enough to.

My friend, you underestimate yourself! How are you ever going to be able to hold views and ideas for yourself (as your own) if you rely on everyone else to give you theirs? Abide by what you think is true, not what other people necessarily say. Use their views to sharpen your own. I believe in you!

It's why I need their help with the papers so I can put it all behind me.

What makes me worried about this sentence is that it seems like you are thinking the solution is to prove solipsism is false (or to, at least, disprove those worrying papers you read): you must understand why it makes you upset in the case it is true and root that out, then it won’t matter anymore.

Bob

This is the math one:

http://bc.upjp2.edu.pl/Content/5621/35_PDFsam_Całość%20ze%20znakiem%20wodnym3.pdf

But if philosophical zombies were real then it would affect how I feel and treat people. Since they don’t have feelings or care about me then I would be colder, it would also leave me hugely depressed.

Though it’s getting better each day as I see the more nonsense arguments are for it:

https://www.quora.com/Is-solipsism-unfalsifiable-and-therefore-should-be-dismissed/answer/Johans-Work

Like this one claiming it is falsifiable, and then proceeding to show they have no idea what falsifiable even means.

Yes it exists as an idea and yea it has effects if you choose to act as though it is true but that’s not being falsifiable. Falsifiable means we are able to test it and prove it wrong (or right) and we can’t. There is simply no way to test it or prove it which is why it’s an eternal question. It’s like trying to prove a simulation from within a simulation.

That which has … how should I say? … ‘True Existence’ is that which we cannot be aware of - it effectively does not exist for us. This is like the Kantian Noumenon that has ‘negative existence’ (if you are familiar with Kant).

Hunting for some ‘Truth’/‘Absolute’ is contrary. This does not mean there is merely subjectivism and opinion. The possess the item we call ‘knowledge’ due to common themes/pattern but this ‘knowledge’ is not absolute. I believe it is best to think of knowledge as that which can be brought into question and/or investigated. That which cannot is not an item for our limited human scope. Also, limitation itself allows knowledge. You can take an everyday example of this with something like speech or walking. We do not ‘walk’ or ‘speak’ in a state of perpetual knowledge of how our legs function or how words are uttered as well as their particular meanings and possible contexts … the action of ‘speech’ and ‘walking’ inhabit us and it is only when we focus in on them that they become attended to that they can become ‘knowledge’.

I guess the issue comes in where even if you allege something as certain that is still just an assumption. Unless you have total omniscience then you don’t have true certainty.

So when I think back to that Quora post (alleged one that allegedly proves it but I’m not sure now), I’m realizing either they were wrong or I was wrong (far more likely I was wrong) because the very nature of solipsism prevents you from being able to prove it one way or another, either right or wrong.

Though part of me wonders how language would affect omniscience.

Solipsism means you are the author of your story, not a cold uncaring physical universe. You have the ability to change your reality. It's empowering, not depressing. But I get it. I obsess about this stuff too.