That’s not what solipsism says, not even close.

I'm going by this:
"What do solipsists believe?
Based on a philosophy of subjective idealism, metaphysical solipsists maintain that the self is the only existing reality and that all other realities, including the external world and other persons, are representations of that self, and have no independent existence."

How are you using the term?

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

Solipsism, depending, is either skepticism or denial of anything else. It says nothing about being the author or creator of that reality. I don’t find the points in the wiki convincing. Not only can you not be sure you exist but also you can’t be sure you have a mind.

But let’s grant it that, just because you know that for certain doesn’t mean everything else is just a product of your mind, hallucination, etc. At MOST you can conclude it’s uncertain. Denial would imply knowledge you cannot access.

I was just arguing something similar here against this: https://www.quora.com/Is-epistemological-solipsism-a-contradiction-logic-solipsism-philosophy/answer/David-Dixon-434

In fact even as a form of skepticism it doesn’t go far enough. True skepticism would be doubting all concepts of a self, consciousness, mind, etc, see how far that gets you.

And let’s be honest, even if someone was one they don’t behave as though it’s true. They’ll still avoid traffic, still won’t murder, etc. They’ll still behave as though it’s all real so then you’d have to ask what was the point of asking to begin with.

And let’s be honest, even if someone was one they don’t behave as though it’s true. They’ll still avoid traffic, still won’t murder, etc. They’ll still behave as though it’s all real so then you’d have to ask what was the point of asking to begin with. — Darkneos

That's not a good objection. If this is all a dream, I would still rather skip the dreamed experience of getting run over by a dream car.

Can one be arrogant enough to believe he is the sole source and author of all great music, all architectural marvels and technological achievements, the author of all our epistemology and the content found in all youtube videos.
And if he does believe that...why getting in the trouble to debate it with him self in a public forum?

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together
See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly
I'm crying. — J.Lennon

Solipsism is merely a myopic failure of empathy. I am @Darkneos failing to be me. The third person is me beyond the horizon of self. As him I run from the gun, even as I come here demanding to be shot down. It's a game that I play with myself until I am bored. There is another game called 'love', that i can play when the crying and the running stop.

Can one be arrogant enough to believe he is the sole source and author of all great music, all architectural marvels and technological achievements, the author of all our epistemology and the content found in all youtube videos. — Nickolasgaspar

It only looks arrogant from the isolation of the self. But when I was Einstein, I was not arrogant, but humble.

I see. Although I did not read the whole thing (admittedly), I would like to note that that is not a mathematical proof: it is formal logic; and no one can prove solipsism (nor anything in actually as a matter of fact) from pure, formal logic alone (albeit they may not be claiming that, as I didn't fully read it yet). Logic is about the form of an argument, and says nothing pertaining to the content. The whole article is too long for me to read right now, but eventually I will get around to it.

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.

A philosophical zombie still has 'feelings' and 'cares' in the sense that you can see with your own eyes: they can express gestures of gratitude, they avoid pain, sit down and listen to your problems, they can still love you, etc.;

I think if you really reflect about what you can know (directly from experience), you will find that the warmth or frigidity of other people is a reflection of your pyschological state of mind. For example, imagine you sincerely believed that solipsism was false, wouldn't that bring some wanted warmth into experience for you? even though nothing changed about reality other than your state of mind, you would now experience a warmer kind of coexistence with other people. Now, imagine you believed it is true (or maybe that it is even indeterminate), then you lose that warmth--see how this is not a reflection of the truthity of the actual position of solipsism? It is a depiction of your state of mind. If you dive into yourself, then you can fix the issue without getting an answer to solipsism.

Bob

it actually is a good objection. If it’s a dream the car can’t hurt you and you could just make the car not or stop it yourself. I’ve been shot, stabbed, hit by a car, etc in a dream and it didn’t hurt.

But since you act and behave as though it will hurt and get out of the way anyway (like in real life) your “dream” argument is moot. Like I said, the solipsist still models and behaves as though everything is real and exists so they’re just being argumentative for it’s own sake.

Never mind your definition of solipsism being you are the author and shaper is wrong.

Can one be arrogant enough to believe he is the sole source and author of all great music, all architectural marvels and technological achievements, the author of all our epistemology and the content found in all youtube videos.
And if he does believe that...why getting in the trouble to debate it with him self in a public forum? — Nickolasgaspar

This is a false argument against it, it has nothing to do with being arrogant.

Failure of empathy is another false argument against it. You’re attacking their character when their character has nothing to do with it. There are better counter arguments that don’t develop to attacking the person.

A philosophical zombie still has 'feelings' and 'cares' in the sense that you can see with your own eyes: they can express gestures of gratitude, they avoid pain, sit down and listen to your problems, they can still love you, etc.;

I think if you really reflect about what you can know (directly from experience), you will find that the warmth or frigidity of other people is a reflection of your pyschological state of mind. For example, imagine you sincerely believed that solipsism was false, wouldn't that bring some wanted warmth into experience for you? even though nothing changed about reality other than your state of mind, you would now experience a warmer kind of coexistence with other people. Now, imagine you believed it is true (or maybe that it is even indeterminate), then you lose that warmth--see how this is not a reflection of the truthity of the actual position of solipsism? It is a depiction of your state of mind. If you dive into yourself, then you can fix the issue without getting an answer to solipsism. — Bob Ross

A philosophical zombie by definition has no feelings and doesn’t care so it wouldn’t matter what gestures, words, etc they do because you know it’s not true. It’s like a robot doing it for you so your argument is wrong.

I know how I feel doesn’t affect the truth of solipsism, but that’s beside the point. The fact you think there is no difference means that you really don’t get it. I’ve looked into myself but there isn’t fixing it. If solipsism ended up being true then it wouldn’t matter what other people did, it would be cold because you know their gestures and words mean nothing. They’re not from someone, they don’t have any feelings.

Like…you’re kidding yourself if you think your argument holds weight. Of course there is a world of difference when you’re interacting with a human who has feelings and emotions (if anything that argument is why animals have rights now because people thought they were just mindless beasts before). Even just looking at history you can see how people treat those they view as less than or even demoting them below human status. Black people had it happen not long ago.

So no, and I encourage you to rethink your points again.

↪unenlightened Failure of empathy is another false argument against it. You’re attacking their character when their character has nothing to do with it. There are better counter arguments that don’t develop to attacking the person. — Darkneos

I'm only attacking myself, so there's no need to complain. And even then, it's descriptive – a solipsist has no one with whom to empathise; it's not a fault. And not an argument either if it comes to it.

So then you’re not really adding anything to the conversation.

↪unenlightened So then you’re not really adding anything to the conversation. — Darkneos

Solipsists don't have conversations, they talk to themselves, as I am doing.

But they don’t talk to themselves.

Who do they talk to, then?

No one because there is no one else.

Daft bugger!

I mean that’s part of why solipsism is absurd. The concept of communication loses all meaning and purpose, everything really.

And there's no arguing with absurdists, because fish never eat with their fingers.

Absurdism isn’t even close to solipsism.

This is the implication of such outlandish claims.

It's not, regardless of what you may think arrogance is not an implication. That's the ignorant response.

Any similar claim outside that worldview would be identified as arrogant . So you will need to come up with a far better explanation and keep the same standards and criteria in your evaluations.

You can ID it all you want that doesn't make it arrogant. Like I said, come up with actual criticisms like others have.

I did. Its arrogant to thing that "we" are the sole creator of everything humans ever created. Humility alone should be enough to reject that silly worldview.

Again, bring an actual criticism of it.

I find it really ridiculous to even criticize this unfalsifiable speculation on the unobservable nature of reality (if there is one to begin with).
The burden of proof demands evidence from the side making the claim, so I will insist on demanding a demonstration. The ridiculous nature of the claim is enough I guess.

Ah so you’ve got nothing then.