In my view, the whole thing, the world, and the perspective, just spontaneously jumps into existence out of nothing. I don't know how I got here, all I know is that I'm here, and everything else is. In addition, observation doesn't bring objects into existence. It's more like everything happens together.

If you conflate "me" and "you" and call it "me" you can put together some kind of argument for solipsism. But it's a simple - not to mention outlandish - mistake. It's obviously forced and sophistic. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I never conflated "me" and "you". Every statement correctly describes the world in its own right. It is impossible to make a statement without including who made that statement. No matter what I do, I cannot abstract myself away. Let me correct that for you, so it's accurate from your perspective:

In a world, there is one Me
In a world, Me is ZzzoneiroCosm,
In a world, there is one Biz,
In a world, there is one Echarmion

Even this is incorrect, because ultimately, I for a fact know that Me is Biz and not ZzzoneiroCosm. And while I'm reading all these statements on this forum, the Me has not jumped to Zzz or Ech. However, I'm unable to prove or communicate this, because in the physical world, nothing would have changed even if the Me had jumped. The Me is a non-physical entity that exists in the world. So the next best thing I can do is for you to derive the argument as if the Me was the person you are...

If you conflate "subjectivity" and "objectivity", and call it "objectivity" you can put together some kind of argument for realism. But it's a simple - not to mention outlandish - mistake. It's obviously forced and sophistic.

I don't disagree with this, but my lack of knowledge does not imply absence of these other FFP. — Echarmion

Observation is not lack of knowledge. It's the possibility of any information flow whatsoever. Here's some more:

You say:

K. There is one Me
L. In a world, Me is one of FPPs.
M. Hence in a world, Me is FPP_1

I say,

37. In a world, there is one Me
38. In a world, Me is one of FPPs
39. Hence, in a world, Me is FPP_2

40. In a world, FPP_1 and FPP_2 are two distinct FPPs
41. Hence, in a world, both FPP_1 and FPP_2 are Me

It is clear to see that 40. contradicts with 41. There are a few possible ways to resolve this, but each of them leads to further contradictions:

42.a. FPP_1 and FPP_2 are the same
42.b. In a world, Me does not exist.
42.c. In a world, there are multiple Me.
42.d. FPP_1 and FPP_2 are in two distinct worlds

42.a is incorrect because Me has access to the FPP of bizso09 but not to that of Echarmion.
42.b is incorrect because Me has access to the FPP of bizso09. If Me did not exist, Me would have no access to this FPP.
42.c is incorrect, because Me is by definition singular.
42.d is incorrect because there is one world that includes everything in existence.

This leads us back to the point where

43. In a world, there is only one FPP. [10.]

The puzzle some people see in de se reasoning is, on the one hand it seems that I have uncovered some substantive information when I discover that I am Peter, but on the other it is difficult to say anything more about what I have discovered other than that, quite simply, I am Peter. — jkg20

That's totally correct. However, I'd say the difference is 1) I am a neutral God, narrating that "Peter wants to get elected" or 2) I am Peter and I want to get elected or 3) I am this person typing now and noting that "Peter wants to get elected". I know that the correct choice is 3), but with respect to the objective reality, there is no difference between 1) 2) or 3). So where does the information come from to select 3)?

If being observed is a requirement for existing, what observes that unique first person perspective? — Daniel

It observes itself. The reference point is like a coordinate system for existence. As an exercise, ask yourself how you know that you are you. Well, you do, because you simply are.

Reasoning purely de se therefore involves a contradiction... — Banno

Ultimately, all reasoning is de se. Even for the de re sentence "Peter wants to get elected", the complete sentence is "I believe that Peter wants to get elected". A lot of language, when objectively describing the world, removes the "I", which is a mistake.

Well, to be honest, I think nobody really knows how the world works, so if you're honest with yourself, you can admit it too.

Let's go back to the original framework:

You say

G. In a world, there is a distinct FPP that is not me.
H. Every statement is made by me.
I. G is a statement about distinct FPP.
J. Hence, me makes a statement about a distinct FPP.

I say,

31. To view something, is to form a minimal connection with something.
32. Hence, to make a statement about a thing, then has to view that thing.
33. In a world, me has to view something to make a statement about that thing.

34. In a world, me is one of FPP [D.]
35. In a world, an FPP cannot view other distinct FPP.
36. In a world, me cannot make a statement about other distinct FPP.

36 leads to contradiction with J. In particular, what was missing before is H.

Here's another way to prove it.

I say:

1. There is one me.
2. You are not me.
3. Me only makes statements by numbers.

You say:

A. There is one me.
B. You are not me.
C. Me only makes statements by alphabet.

All statements are True, but C and 3 contradict.

And again, there is one significant problem, as I see it, your view runs into. If the only relation in the world is to me, then why do I not start out omniscient and omnipotent? Why do I experience a "perspective" if I am not really looking "at" anything at all? — Echarmion

That's a good question, and I don't know. It's just how it is I guess. I don't attempt to answer why everything, including me, exist at all, or why things exist the way they do. My hypothesis is that things just pop into existence out of literally nothing (the void?), until they pop out. Nevertheless, I still attempt to reason about stuff, however futile or random it may seem. I know there is no point, but what else am I supposed to do, while I "am"?

Yeah but is it the reference point? — Echarmion

Another thing to mention is that FPP by construction is supposed to be singular. I am not able to imagine a world from a neutral "God's eye point of view". Whatever world I can possibly think of can only be observed from FPP, and as such, I use that for the reference point.

Based on evidence I have available to me, if I had to choose between a world existing in some kind of objective neutral form, and a world where there must be a single FPP observer, my world being like that I would ipso facto choose the latter.

Also, if something cannot be related to you in a world, there would be absolutely no difference between that thing existing or not existing from your perspective.

The reason is because FPP is just a reference point. A better word for observing would be "relating". If two things cannot be related to one another in any way, I don't see how they could possibly exist in the same world. If two things are completely unrelated, then they must be in different worlds. Relation implies some form of connection.

Also, what you're referring to as other FPPs in your world are in fact TPPs and can be related to you. In addition, we agreed that FPPs and TPPs are not equal to each other in any possible world.

No idea where you get C from. It's not anything I said and you haven't provided an argument for it. — Echarmion

Great. Then we agree on 16.

So you say.

E. In a world, an FPP cannot view something.
F. In a world, an FPP cannot view another distinct FPP.

I say

24. If an FPP cannot view something, then they are in different distinct worlds.
25. Hence, in a world, an FPP can view everything [18.]

26. In a world, an FPP can view itself.
27. In a world, if an FPP views another FPP, then they are the same [21.]
28. In a world, an FPP cannot view another distinct FPP. [F.]

29. Hence, in a world, there is only one FPP. [10.]
30. Hence, multiple distinct FPPs are in multiple distinct worlds [23.]

Obviously I don't accept 10 if I didn't accept 9. Because 10 is the conclusion that follows from 9, and without 9, there is no 10. WTF... — Echarmion

Ok, so you say

A. In a world, me is one of FPPs.
B. In a world, there are multiple FPPs that are distinct.
C. In a world, FPPs and TPPs are the same.
D. Hence, in a world me is one of TPPs

D. is clearly False. Are you a third person perspective in your world?

I say

16. In a world, FPPs and TPPs are not the same [12.]

17. In a world, there has to be at least one FPP.
18. In a world, everything can be viewed from an FPP.
19. In a world, there is nothing outside of everything [2.]

20. In a world, if a FPP views another TPP, they are not the same.
21. In a world, if a FPP views another FPP, they are the same.
22. Hence, in a world all FPPs are the same [13.]

23. If there are multiple distinct FPPs, then there are multiple distinct worlds [14.]

13. doesn't follow from either 11. or 12. nor from any other part of the argument. It also contradicts 10 — Echarmion

13. follows from 10. Given that in a world there is only one FPP, if there are multiple FPPs in that world, then they are all the same FPP.

9. I don't accept without further argument. Me is not the same as FPP. Me is an example of a FPP. — Echarmion

That's ok, 9. is actually not needed for 15., if you accept 10. which states that in any given world, there is one FPP in that world. Note, this still permits other worlds having their own FPPs, in 14.

Empire building by itself is not a problem I think. Many would agree that living in the Roman Empire was more prosperous than living in some germanic tribe. The USA is also an empire of its states, but people are quite happy there. Soviet Union with its communism was quite misguided...

There are some corrupt elements to the EU, such as the CAP subsidy system favouring large landowners, such as the Queen and Saudi sheikhs, and the lack of auditing of financials, which I think is a pretty huge problem. They also appoint the commissioner rather than go with the Spitzenkanidate, which is a true disrespect to democracy.

However, in my opinion, the goal should be reform, not disintegration. The UK will be ruled by the elite hiding in their "non-UK" offshore jurisdictions even more than before, and there will be no EU counterweight to protect everyday people. So certain elites will benefit a lot.

The middle class in the UK will be clearly at a disadvantage, as I'd argue they were one of the big beneficiaries of EU membership.

The lower class will benefit too, but only in the short term. If they were non-competitive with EU workers, the right solution would be to increase competitiveness and learn a new skill, and not to resort to isolationism and protectionism. As the former will increase overall wealth much more than the latter. So it's only a short term win for them.

People group into larger organisation when they can derive some benefit from it. The benefit of cooperation must be greater than the benefit of defection.

There is no reason why people shouldn't be lone wolfs roaming the world on their own. They can organise into tribes, villages, cities, countries and federations.

It's also about power balance. During the second world war, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China were at war with each other. Then when the Japanese attacked, all of a sudden they united and cooperated under a single China. Then when the Japanese left, they went back to war.

You can bet that if aliens showed up tomorrow, then all of sudden a one world government would form for defense.

You can agree or disagree with the UK leaving the EU, but it's a bet they made and only the future will tell if it's the right one. Also, within every single country there's many people, and the policy is determined as an interplay of all the interests and agenda individual people have. So naturally, for every decision there are losers and winners.

Decisions are the outcome of local optima in a single group. The more small groups you have, the higher likelihood it is that they will reach a local optimum different from a global optimum. Even if the global optimum would result in higher utility overall than the sum of various local optima.

My bet is that the UK will become something like Singapore with Scotland and Ireland breaking off. They will thrive by subverting EU regulations, just like Singapore thrives by subverting Chinese regulations.

Please tell me the line number that is incorrect.

FPP: first person perspective
TPP: third person perspective

1. A world includes everything there is.
2. There is nothing outside of everything.
3. Hence a world is everything.

4. Everything is the same as existence.
5. Hence, a world is the same as existence.
6. There is one existence.
7. Hence there is one world.

8. In any world, there is one me.
9. In any world, me is the same as FPP.
10. Hence, in any world, there is one FPP.

11. In any world, there can be multiple TPPs.
12. In any world, FPP is not equal to any TPP.
13. Hence, in any world if there are multiple FPPs, then they are the same.

14. If there are multiple FPPs then there are multiple worlds.
15. But there is only one world, so one FPP.

There is one objective world, on which there are multiple perspectives, which create smaller subjective worlds. — Echarmion

This does not explain how one of the subjective worlds becomes me. You say there's a world with multiple TPPs. Where does the FPP come in?

Things not inside your FPP don't exist for you. — Echarmion

Things can only exist in a FPP, and not outside, because FPP defines existence. These things don't have to be knowable, but they must be observable.

This actually follows logically from assuming there is a "perspective" on the first place — Echarmion

Yes, but these two things are equivalent, because for something to exist, it is observed and vice versa.

Your last sentence is correct. The one before it isn't. — Echarmion

Ok, let's be objective. Given I don't exist, what can I say about the world. Hmmm.... nothing?

The main issue lies in the statement that there are multiple FPPs, but each FPP actually must include everything. There is no such thing as something that exists in one FPP, but not another FPPs, because this is akin to saying that object X exists and it does not exist, since FPP defines existence. This leads to a contradiction. It's easy to follow how this implies that there's only one FPP.

Okay, take 3.

There is nothing unique about an objective world. There are things in it. Now add subjectivity. Still nothing unique, many subjective experiences. Now select one of the subjective experiences to be me. Now that subjective experience is unique, because it's me.

The me in this case is merely the first person perspective (FPP). Nothing else, not the body, not the mind. Now when you say you have a FPP too, that means there are multiple FPPs. But if there are multiple, they are actually the same, because one FPP is still a FPP, as it's observed from the same place. If I regard your FPP actually a third person perspective (TPP), then in my world those two things are different.

If there were genuinely multiple FPPs, that would require multiple worlds that are completely disjoint. But since there is only one world with everything inside it, how can this be? That would mean that my FPP cannot observe that world at all. But since FPP is just a relation with respect to which things can exist, how could something exist and not be inside my FPP? Anything outside of my FPP cannot possibly exist for me.

there has to be some order, otherwise there would be pure random chaos or noise. The order comes from the force field of want, just like electro-magnetism or gravity.

That's not very constructive.

It's not like I have several perspectives, and only one is first person. I have only one perspective, — Echarmion

Yes, so you are the first person perspective. The other perspectives are not you.

And that's the answer to the second question: The information isn't stored in compartment. Rather it is a property that "I" have — Echarmion

That's ok, the only requirement is that the information must exist somewhere. You can make a property.

But I must be part of something, so what am I a part of? — Echarmion

You are part of the world that you observe. It's your world, which is defined by you. And this world includes everything that can exist for you, including yourself. There is nothing outside of this.

This also means that you and your world are actually the same thing. Everything in your world is you. But that doesn't mean that other perspectives are you too, rather it means other perspectives do not exist, because they would be not you.

Things come to exist via the first person perspective, which is you. When you say something exists, it means it is observable by the first person perspective that is you. The perspective is like a coordinate system. It makes no sense to talk about non-existence, so we can only talk about existence, which includes everything there is, observed by the first person perspective, aka you.

At the end of the day, it's only the you that exists. Everything is included in the you. That table you see over there is part of your observation via the first person perspective.

I experience things, so something must create that experience, but it's not necessarily "I". — Echarmion

I'm not talking about experience here, merely just a perspective or reference point. The fact that in the world the perspective does reside with a human that has experience is coincidental. You could imagine the perspective floating in the sky, and not tied to any particular human. The only requirement is that it has to be the first person point of view.

I don't see how it doesn't make sense. After all, what I am doing is assuming other people are like me. And in doing so, I am attributing to them a first person perspective because I have one, but which of course I cannot actually prove they have. — Echarmion

In the world you live in, you know that only you have the first person perspective. You cannot attribute something to others that you know they don't have. You know for sure they don't have a first perspective, because if they did, they would be you, but you know that you are not them. Does this make sense?

The only way for them to have their own first perspectives is to be in their own separate worlds. If their world is observable to you, then their world is actually part of yours, and not really separate. So they would not have the first perspective, because you would have it. If their world is outside of yours, then that means you cannot observe it, and as a result, it doesn't exist for you. So again, their first perspective does not exist.

No. Again, I can talk about things that don't exist. Like Dragons. — Echarmion

Well, if you don't think other worlds exist where others have first perspective, then it sounds like we agree and I don't need to prove anything to you. This proves my point that only you have the first person perspective, and not others.

In addition, you cannot make statements about things that do not exist for you. When you talk about Dragon, you're actually referring to the idea of a Dragon shown in literature or movies. Or your imagination of what a dragon looks like. Or your example here. These things exist in your world. If you're talking about real dragon that roamed the Earth, well you can't because that thing does not exist. In fact, you wouldn't even know how to describe a real dragon on Earth, because it is not part of your observable world. (and I don't know it either)

I don't think I am a thing. — Echarmion

It's ok, you just need to exist, can be anything, subject or object.

Did we need an argument proving that only you have your own first person perspective? — Echarmion

I can prove that only I have the first perspective the same way everybody else can. But from the argument above, it is clear that there can be only one first person perspective, not multiple. So it's not possible for everyone to have it. Since I know that I have one, it means I have that perspective.

Ok let's take a step back. I'll try to derive the argument from your point of view.

Do you agree that things exist?
Do you agree that you are and have a perspective?
Do you agree that others have a perspective?

Given that you answered all 3 of these questions "yes", tell me how you know which perspective you have? Where is that information stored?

The answer to this question is you know it, because one of the perspectives is seen from the first person point of view, while others are not. The extra information in the world, which tells you who you are is contained in the first person point of view. That is the differentiator.

Now let's assume that there is no first person point of view. That means you cannot observe the world. Observation can only happen in first person. So that means you do not exist.

You are not your body, not your thoughts, not your mind because those things can still exist without a perspective. You are the perspective itself. You are the angle of observation.

If you do not exist, does the world still exist? As far as you're concerned, the world comes about because you observe it. In fact, if you do not exist, then nothing makes sense anymore for you, because everything requires you to be here in the first place. If you say that the world still exists when you do not, then that statement makes no sense.

But since things do exist for you, that means you are. And for you, things can exist, precisely because you are here to observe them. Note, do not confuse observing with knowing. Things can still be observed without knowing them. Observation merely means that they can be related to you in some form.

Next question, why don't other people have perspectives? That's because perspective has to be in first person. In the world you live, only you have that. So it makes no sense to talk about others having first perspectives, because you know that only you have it.

You might say, others do have first perspectives in their own worlds. But if you talk about these "other" worlds, that means they exist, and as a result, you can observe them within your world. If you observe their perspectives, they won't be first person anymore, because they are "other" and not you.

If these other worlds are outside of your world, then as far as you're concerned, they do not exist all, because in order for things to exist, they must be observable for you. So when you say, these other perspectives exist and are outside of your world, that's a nonsensical statement.

Why is perspective a thing in the world? Simply because it tells you who you are. Are you a thing in the world? How do you know that you are a thing? It's because things exist for you. If you were not a thing, nothing would exist for you, and it would make no sense to have this conversation between us.

The final bit of the argument says that every person can derive this argument, leading to the conclusion that only their perspective is first. However, you know that only you have the first perspective because that's what defines you, and other perspectives are not first. Hence, although it looks like there is a contradiction, there is no contradiction at all.

Nonetheless, you cannot prove this to others, because doing so would require sharing your first person perspective with them, at which point others would become "you" and you would need to prove things to yourself, which is unnecessary, as you already know that you are you.

I'd be interested to hear how we could conceptualise an metaphysically objective world without assuming the viewpoint of a hypothetical outside observer. — Echarmion

It is not possible. In the previous example about A,B,C, you'd be ignoring the observer, "yourself", typing out your reply on this forum. But in fact, I'd be ignoring myself observing your typing. The ultimate observer in this chain is me right now watching myself type on my laptop. If we're talking about the world, then we have to include this. We cannot conceptualise it away.

Of course to imagine any kind of world, I have to imagine myself observing it. But that's a crutch my imagination needs — Echarmion

It's not just a crutch of imagination, it's a fundamental part of reality we live in.

Your argument would also lead to an infinite recursion of observers — Echarmion

That's correct, but you can show that no matter how many recursions you do, you will always end up with a single ultimate observer. If there was no observer in the end, that would mean nothing would exist.

By your own logic, entities either enter into a relation to an observer, in which case they exist, or they don't — Echarmion

The observer and existence itself are the same thing. If something exists, then it is observed by the reference point. If something does not exist, it is not observed.

But crucially there are entities that don't exist but still have properties. — Echarmion

What is a thing that does not exist but has property? If we're talking about the world that is everything, then that includes that. There is nothing outside of it.

then the same entity can be in different relations with different observers — Echarmion

Existence is a binary thing. Either something is included in "everything" or it's not. There is no "something" outside of everything. You cannot have multiple existences because by definition the world would expand to include it all.

I'd go so far as to say that existence is in fact "unary" because if something does not exist, you cannot make any statements about it. For example, when you talk about dead people, you're talking about things that exist in the universe at a particular point of time, or the memories of them, but they still exist there.

But you don't exist, according to your own definition. — Echarmion

Since the observer is existence itself, and we're typing on our laptops right now, we can conclude that there is existence and hence there is an observer. So we know that there is at least one observer out there. We also know that there cannot be more than one. So the question remains, where is this unique observer or reference point? Well, it's where the first person perspective resides. If I ask you the question, do you have first person perspective, my answer would be "no", because you have a third person perspective. If I ask myself, do I have first person perspective, then the answer is "yes". Hence, I know the observer is me. There is absolutely no contradiction for me. The contradiction arises because you claim you also have a "first person perspective". But by definition in any reality, there is one first person perspective, not multiple. You cannot have multiple first person perspectives, because then those would not be "truly" first person, from the perspective of the ultimate observer.

If you don't want to believe this, because you think you are an observer, that's fine. But in that case, you must believe that I am not a real observer, and you are the only one. Do you believe that? The fact that I have proof known to me about me being an observer would be irrelevant for you. In particular, you cannot come to the conclusion that you are not the only observer.

don't worry, it's nothing personal

The contradiction in your argument comes from the fact that you regard the world as a collection of distinct entities, and while doing so, you assume the viewpoint of an outsider observer.

You say A is A, B is B, C is C, it's all self evident, they are part of the topology of the universe, they are their own flags. But this is incomplete because the world does not just consist of A, B and C but also an additional observer that is making the statement about A, B and C. You cannot ignore the observer.

Fundamentally, things must exist in relation to a specific reference point or observer. They cannot exist without a reference point. When something exists, it must exist in relation to something. That something is called "the first person perspective". This must be unique because there is a single way for things to either exist or not exist.

When you mistakenly introduce other perspectives, then again you talk about a collection of entities, so those entities must again exist in relation to some reference point. Basically, when I say there is a reference point, I'm making the statement that "things exist". These two statements are equivalent.

If you try to derive this argument from your perspective, you will arrive at the conclusion that that reference point for things to exist is in fact "your reference point". Every person can do this. However, we've seen that there is only one such reference point. Hence, there is a contradiction, because you cannot have multiple worlds out there with multiple reference points, when there is a single way for everything to exist or not. It's a binary choice.

The reason the reference point resides in me, is because I know I exist here and I observe. I do not observe the world through the sky, or space or ether or some other person's or animal's point of view. So I know for sure that there is at least one reference point. And since there cannot be other reference points, I know that mine is the one. The alternative is that there is a fundamental paradox in the universe that cannot be explained with reasoning.

Only if the "you" isn't part of the universe — Echarmion

The "you" must be part of the universe, because the universe includes everything

If we assume that there is an "objective universe" that exists irrespective of any perspective, then "you" must also be in some way part of that — Echarmion

Agree.

The world where I am A is different from the world where I am B. — Echarmion

Exactly.

Without me, there wouldn't be a person, there would be no experience, and while there would still be a world in some sense, — Echarmion

By person, do you mean the limbs, the body, the thought, the mind or the perspective? When you build up a person step by step, at one point you gotta add the "you".

My perspective is an integral part of me. It's fundamentally who I am. — Echarmion

Agree.

They experience their world, not the world. — Echarmion

Everyone experiences their own world, but there is still a single "The world" out there, because there is one everything.

Because that's what the word means? — Echarmion

Yes, but it refers to two different entities.

On the other hand, you have no way of knowing whether I am just a single person replying to you or some kind of committee. — Echarmion

Correct. The only thing I know is that right now I'm person X writing this post, and the first perspective resides in me.

I'm sorry, but there's no way to refute Solipsism. — h060tu

I'm trying to prove it here objectively, without resorting to assumptions.

There is no such thing as "you" to which the category of "knowing" could apply in this scenario — Echarmion

yes there is. The universe can be completely identical in every way, except for the "you". Let's assume you know the following: A, B and C exist. In scenario 1, you are A, in scenario 2, you are B, in scenario 3, you do not exist. Between the three scenarios, there's absolutely no difference in the world, apart from the "you". The person you are now, could think, act, live and experience the world exactly the same way with or without "you" being there to observe it. Or look at your friend, they think, act, live and experience the world, but "you" do not observe any of that. Why is it that when you say "I" you mean person A and not person C. If you were to ask person A and C if they are them, they will both say yes. But only "you" know which one of them is indeed you, because the "you" is assigned to person A. The first person perspective goes with A, not C.

But if there is only one subject of experience — jkg20

There can be multiple subjective experiences, what I'm claiming is that there is a single "first person point of view". It is impossible to observe the world through a neutral point of view, like a scientist looking at a closed experiment from outside of that system. There is nothing outside of the world, therefore, the observer is always part of the world being observed. The angle of the first person observer has to be encoded somewhere. If you are the scientist looking at a box of mice, then you are one of the mice, but you gotta know which one.

A camera might be placed to give a specific perspective on a scene, — jkg20

In the analogy, the perspective is from the viewer who watches the movie. Whichever camera is shown on screen, has the "first person point of view". Likewise, in the book analogy, the perspective comes from the narrator.

But you are arguing for a position that there are not two such perspectives, aren't you? — jkg20

Sorry, you are right. I'm saying we have two subjective experiences (not perspectives), so the single perspective tells me which one is going to be mine. In my original argument, perspective is the flag

The reason this exists, is because I can unequivocally tell the difference between my subjective experiences vs yours.
If you also had a perspective, then again we would have to have a "super-perspective" to tell which one will be mine. This would need to progress to an infinite regress.
These perspectives are things in the world, because by definition the world includes everything there is.
If in the infinite regress, we will have multiple perspectives, then I should be able to view the world from both you and I. This is not the case at the moment, so this is false.
If in the infinite regress there are no perspectives, then that means right now I would not be here. This is again false, because I am here.
Hence, the only solution is that all perspectives will converge to a single perspective, which is mine.
A crucial bit of the argument is that fact I am here. I cannot prove this to anybody else, but it's a reasonable assumption to make. This basically says that "first person perspective" exists.

This seems tautologous because it can't be falsified so I suspect it may be a proof without meaning. — Zophie

This can be falsified because you can derive the same argument from your point of view, and it will lead to a contradiction with mine.

If this is what you are getting at then premise 2 requires a lot of supporting argument. — jkg20

Why is "mine" a thing in the world? Because I can tell the difference between my perspective and yours. Right now, I'm Joe, I am not Jean or Micheal. "Mine" is the information which tells me who I am. It is the point of view.

For example, imagine you're watching a movie. The perspective would be the camera. The camera is not a thing in the movie, but in reality, the camera is part of the world, because there's nothing outside the world.

If you mean that only you have the view of the world that is yours, i agree. — tim wood

If Jimmy has their view of the world, and Mike has their view of the world, then how do I tell if I am Jimmy or Mike? You might say I know who I am, but actually I don't unless the "mineness" is stored somewhere.

For example, in a video game, you pick a character to play. Your selection is stored. When you read a book, the narrator's point of view is stored in the way the story is written.

If you are observer nr. 587, there might be a flag nr. 587 attached to the things that you experience. Another person might experience the things with flag nr. 935 etc. — Echarmion

How do I know I'm observer nr 587, and not nr 935? Where does that information come from?

This doesn't make much sense since the "you" would have zero content associated with it. — Echarmion

You are right that "you" has zero content, but actually "you" encodes the "angle of observation" or the "point of view". So it does have something.

Objectively, how do you know that whenever you feel the feeling of pain, that means "do not do that". I get that from an evolutionary point of view, it makes sense, but how do YOU know that is how you're supposed to act when you feel THAT feeling. Did your gene call you on the phone, and told you "listen, when I give you this signal, it's called pain, and that means stop doing what you're doing". If you are in control of your behaviour and your behaviour is controlled by your thoughts, and not your emotions, then at some point you would have had to make the decision to actually "let's avoid pain". Since you never made that decision, it's the pain emotion deciding it for you, not YOU or your thoughts. So YOU do not know why you're doing what you're doing, you need to ask your emotions, and you have no clue where they come from.

Now you could argue for evolution in that the emotions come from outside of YOU, in particular they come from the universe, because it is how the universe tells you that given its physical laws, if you act in a certain way, you will not exist, and you can only exist if you act some other way. But as we established, these are outside of you, so you're sitting there clueless and watching "you doing things without knowing why". Also, you can wonder about why the physical laws are like that, no idea about that either...

So If I get this right, I have control over my beliefs, so I can change them to desire whatever I want through my thought. So first question, how do I decide what I should believe and what I should desire. Is it arbitrary? Do I flip a coin? I think the problem with this train of thought is that it's putting the cart before the horse. The first step in shaping my belief is that I want to change it somehow, I already have a desired end state. Now that first desire is handed to me, from who knows where. Probably from evolution, universe, God, etc... but it's definitely coming from outside of me and directly telling me what to do without me knowing why.

But let's assume that I can change my beliefs. So how should I change them? Could I say believe that putting my hand in fire is the best thing ever? Could I believe that there's a door in that brick wall and I just go through it repeatedly (by banging my head). Could I believe that I do not need food? I might have the willpower to do all of these for some time, but unless I'm getting a hit of dopamine, I will give up eventually. Finally, could I believe that I should kill myself and that's 'desirable'? Or whatever I'm doing now, is the 'desirable' thing to do. I guess if all these were true, then people (and things) could believe or desire anything and the world would be total random chaos. Since there is some order, and laws of universe, and evolution, this is not the case.

Here's forward version. It's the same.
I eat. why?
to have energy. why?
to do work. why?
to get target. why?
to move forward. why?
to buy a house. why?
to have a family. why?
so my children are happy. why?
so they can grow up well. why?
so they have a family. why?
so their children are happy. why?
so they can grow up well.

infinite regress ....

OR
so I'm happy. why?
so I have dopamine. why?
so my body does what it's supposed to. why?
so I fulfil my purpose. why?
so God is happy? why?
I don't know.

You want to avoid pain, because that's what pain feels like — bizso09

Ok, so if not tautology, what does this mean? Who decided that pain is something to avoid? Why can't the feeling of pain be neutral or maybe something to seek?

yeah, so now we're back to evolution, which is back to big bang and God. See my original post.


move forward to where? I like the phrase "forward", everything is making "progress". But where is forward, what are we all going towards? If you don't have the answer you don't know why you're doing it.

You want to avoid pain, because that's what pain feels like. This sounds like you want to avoid pain because of pain. What decided what is painful and what is pleasurable? It's arbitrary.


If I really think about it, I don't know why I posted this thread. I guess because I'm feeling absurd or weird thinking about this?

Yes, you're doing things because of the experience of feelings. But where do those feelings come from? You have no clue. They are just handed to you.

In fact, you're 100% slave to your feelings, because there's no rational reason to do anything else. The only control you have over it is to plan and think in a way to move towards even more pleasure.

To be honest, it appears to me that pain and pleasure are some universal forces in the universe, like gravity or electromagnetism.

There is no rational justification to why I should preserve my pedal digits. Yes, I want to survive and avoid pain, but I don't know why that is.


ok, so we want want it because we do it, and we do it because we want it. This sounds circular, still infinite regress.

I guess what I find amusing is that everybody is busy satisfying their needs and wants, without having a clue why.