If there is uncertainty about other selves, then there is uncertainty in like manner about being the sole self. — javra

Okay I'm back, and hopefully I'm ready to take another crack at this. Your above conclusion is absolutely correct. Uncertainty about whether or not there are other selves must by necessity lead to uncertainty about the concept of the "sole self". But I think that our mutual misunderstanding lies in my inability to adequately explain the difference between epistemological and metaphysical solipsism.

It's metaphysical solipsism that claims that I am the sole self. As such it proposes an absolute that it can't possibly be certain of...that I alone exist. And it's against this type of solipsism that your objection is completely justified. Metaphysical solipsism is a position that's almost self-contradictory.

But that doesn't mean that it's wrong, it just means that there's no way of knowing if it's right.

On the other hand epistemological solipsism isn't as much a statement about what's true, as it is a statement about what's knowable. Consciousness by its very nature, is constrained by what's referred to as the egocentric predicament.

Egocentric predicament, a term coined by Ralph Barton Perry in an article (Journal of Philosophy 1910), is the problem of not being able to view reality outside of our own perceptions. All worldly knowledge takes the form of mental representations that our mind examines in different ways. Direct contact with reality cannot be made outside of our own minds; therefore, we cannot be sure reality even exists. This means that we are each limited to our own perceptual world and views. Solipsism is an extension of this which assumes that only one's own mind is sure to exist. — wikipedia

Epistemological solipsism isn't a statement about what its proponent knows about the world, it's a statement about what its proponent knows about itself, and its own limitations. The epistemological solipsist understands that they can never know, other than by faith, that other minds actually exist.

Now it may be that it's better to go around never questioning such things, and instead content ourselves with less irrational philosophies. But for many of us life isn't about simply being content, it's about being inquisitive, and perhaps the most intriguing question of all is...am I alone? And how do I choose to live my life in the face of that possibility?

Rather than asking "how do you know this?" - a very pertinent question - I'll first ask you do define what "infallible" means to you. That way mind can at least grasp what it is that you're mind is attempting to convey. The analogies you've provided have not helped in any way; in part, because it all consists of fallible knowledge. — javra

Well rabbit holes do tend to be confusing, and unfortunately time isn't an unlimited commodity for me. But then again I do prefer discussions that move at something closer to a snail's pace. It gives one time for contemplation I think, as such I'll get back to you when time and inspiration allow. In the meantime don't think that I purposely overlook things, it's just that my thought processes don't always go where I intend them to. In fact sometimes they don't seem to go anywhere intelligible at all.

Solipsism holds the etymology of "sole self". What am I to understand by the phrase "solipsistic philosopher" if not such being a philosopher who is the "sole self"? — javra

Forgive me for neglecting this bit, but I just find the next part of your post to be so amazingly fascinating that I can't wait to address it. Earlier magritte mentioned the rabbit hole, well this is where the journey down the solipsistic rabbit hole really begins.

And forgive me in advance, because I'm about to completely confuse you, but if you really want to understand metaphysical solipsism, then this is where you have to go.

Sorry

As to issues of knowledge, are you understanding knowledge to be infallible by definition? — javra

No, I wouldn't say that knowledge is infallible. In fact, I would argue that it's quite the opposite, knowledge is by it's very nature, incomplete, and always will be. There are certain things that are by their very nature "knowable", such as 1 + 1 = 2, but there are other things, such as why there's something rather than nothing, which are by their very nature unknowable. Any conscious being will find that question to be unanswerable, just as the question of other minds is unanswerable.

Thus there are certain questions which simply cannot be adequately answered, and that's why knowledge is always destined to be incomplete, and being incomplete, it's prone to being fallible.

But the fascinating thing is, that while knowledge is fallible, I'm not...I'm infallible. Now that's an egotistical statement if there ever was one...I'm infallible. But you have to think very deeply about what that statement means.

Richard Feynman used to explain why light travels in a straight line. He said that light, being a wave, takes every possible path from the source to the observer, but only those waves which don't encounter destructive interference survive. What's fascinating about this, is that this means that light, by it's very nature is infallible, it always takes the right path, even when that path isn't necessarily straight.

The light doesn't need to "know" what the right path is, and it doesn't need to "know" about the physics involved, it's just an inescapable product of light's nature that it always takes the right path.

But what does this have to do with metaphysical solipsism, and how I'm infallible?

People often wonder how the solipsistic consciousness can possibly know how to create things that it has no prior knowledge of. For example, how can it create a college textbook on applied mathematics if it has no prior knowledge of applied mathematics? It wouldn't seem to be logically possible. But then again, it isn't possible for the light to know which path to take either, none-the-less, it does it.

So in metaphysical solipsism it isn't that the mind knows how to create a coherent reality, it's that the mind can only exist in a coherent reality. Just as the light can only exist along the straight path. The mind doesn't need to know the law of non-contradiction, or the principle of sufficient reason, and it doesn't need to know the rules of quantum mechanics either. It's simply that consciousness, like light, can only exist under specific conditions. And for consciousness, that means a coherent reality. Any reality that isn't coherent, in which textbooks on applied mathematics don't make sense, simply can't contain consciousness. Because not only wouldn't college textbooks make sense, but nothing would make sense. It's an all or nothing scenario. The light has no other option than to go straight.

Now I've said all that, to say this, I'm an epistemological solipsist, but that doesn't mean that I haven't considered the metaphysical viewpoint, and I do believe that it has merit. But having merit doesn't make it right. So I can't claim to be a metaphysical solipsist, because at the end of the day I can philosophize about it all I want, but there are always going to be things that I simply cannot know.

Why is there something rather than nothing? And are there really other minds?

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

If you believe that I've done that then I'm sorry. But that being said, I am going to disagree with your argument, after all, that's what this forum is for, but I'll do my best to explain why.

I don't reject the first premise, but I do feel the need to clarify it.

1) Solipsism is the position that in the whole of existence only a single self occurs,... — javra

That's metaphysical solipsism. Let me quote wikipedia, rather than simply rely on my own personal understanding of solipsism.

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. — wikipedia

...or else is known to occur. — javra

That's epistemological solipsism. Likewise, the definition from wikipedia:

Epistemological solipsism is the variety of idealism according to which only the directly accessible mental contents of the solipsistic philosopher can be known. The existence of an external world is regarded as an unresolvable question rather than actually false. — wikipedia

Although it may seem as if these two positions are almost identical, they are in fact substantively different.

The first one makes a direct claim about what's knowable...that my mind is all that exists. The second one contradicts that claim by stating that I do in fact have no way of actually knowing if that claim is true or not...it's an assumption.

2) An epistemological solipsism that rejects metaphysical solipsism thereby rejects that only a single self occurs — javra

Absolutely not. Epistemological solipsism neither accepts nor rejects the metaphysical position, because it has no way of knowing if it's true. Therefore it can never take a position that's definitively for or against it. Individually, the epistemological solipsist can argue in favor of it, or they can argue against it, but they can never actually affirm that either of those positions are in fact true. As far as an epistemological solipsist is concerned, in such a scenario the only knowable position is...I don't know.

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

The objection to premise #2 makes premise #3 moot.

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

Since your premises don't hold, the conclusion doesn't hold either.

You wanted to know if I disagreed, and obviously the answer is yes. But I didn't reject your argument out of hand, I believe that your understanding of the differences between epistemological and metaphysical solipsism are fundamentally incomplete.

And likewise, if you disagree with my objections please let me know where.

1. If God exists, then
a. God has the power to eliminate all evil.
b. God knows how to eliminate all evil.
c. God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
2. If anyone has the power/knowledge/desire to eliminate all evil, then evil does not exist.
3. Therefore, if God exists, then evil does not exist.
4. Evil exists.
5. Therefore, God doesn’t exist. — Isabel Hu

Excuse me for jumping into this discussion without first familiarizing myself with what has already been discussed. But I think that you may have overlooked something, and that's the law of unintended consequences. Your premise seems to be that God could eliminate evil without eliminating something even more desirable in the process.

That's the unknown, does evil allow for the existence of something even more valuable then the cost of evil itself?

Just as God cannot create a square circle, there may be consequences involved in eliminating evil that even God cannot avoid.

Think of it this way, as deplorable and cruel as it may seem at times, survival of the fittest ensures that life survives. And it's only through the existence of the former that one ensures the existence of the latter. Could this be the case with evil? That eliminating it would entail the elimination of something even more precious?

Solipsists love other viewpoints — Partinobodycular

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When one questions intuition, he's questioning it with his reason: at this point, the intuition was already gone and he's being rational. By recognizing something, assessing, you're using reason, the kind of thought defined by "Cogito, ergo sum". — Ergo sum

But the question is, is reasoning enough? I would say no, it's not. Because some things simply aren't deducible by mere reasoning. Like why there's something rather than nothing. Now if the answer to this most fundamental question isn't deducible by reason, then what is?

Basically, "Cogito, ergo sum", I think therefore I am. Now a solipsist might argue that this irreducibility to reason is evidence that consciousness creates reality, and not the other way around. Although to stay true to reason, it may be more accurate to deduce that neither creates the other. But rather that both are but two aspects of something else.

Could you elaborate that? — Ergo sum

Sure, no problem. First, you have to understand intuition. Rich described playing the piano or drawing as examples of things that are intuitive, but such intuitive behavior is based upon learned skills. If I ask an untrained child to draw a picture, or play the piano, their intuitive capabilities will most assuredly be limited. The child may be able to play notes on the piano that aren't completely displeasing, or draw a stick figure that resembles a person, but these skills are almost certainly attributable to previous exposure to sounds that they found pleasant, or coloring in a coloring book. Intuition is an offshoot of a learned skill.

In such instances intuition can be a good thing, but the point where intuition leads to idiocy is when people apply intuition to beliefs. When they apply learned biases to insufficient evidence. Remember, intuition is just an offshoot of learned behavior. It's a reinforcing agent for what one already believes. Now we're all guilty of relying upon intuition. Even Albert Einstein intuitively believed that Quantum Mechanics was wrong. So we can't simply dismiss it, because we rely upon it all the time. But we should recognize that it tends to reinforce that which we already believe. Now sometimes intuition can turn out to be right, and the person looks like a genius. Most times however, intuition turns out to be completely benign, and we barely notice it. But far too often intuition turns out to be dangerously wrong, and we end up with radical Muslim terrorists.

The point is, that trusting in intuition without questioning it's validity, or recognizing its source, is what leads to idiocy. Always question what you believe, and always recognize that intuition is inherently self-reinforcing. And it's those self-reinforcing biases that lead to idiots.

Trusting in intuition is what makes people idiots.

Now to set the record straight, solipsism in it's logical form doesn't maintain that the mind is all that exists, it simply maintains that the mind is all that can be known to exist. Thus it really isn't a testament to the nature of you. It's a testament to the nature of the conscious mind, and what it can and cannot know. But beyond this, the solipsist should understand that even if reality is all in my mind, that doesn't mean that I'm the "creator" of that reality. In the sense that I don't willfully control its form. It's far more likely that my consciousness is simply a naturally occurring aspect of reality. I am, doesn't imply that I'm God, it simply implies that I am.

What other type could there possibly be? — Wosret

Actually, as perceptive as this comment is, it's not quite correct, or perhaps it's better to say that it doesn't give a complete picture of the relationship between the "I" and the "non-I".

If the "I" and the "non-I" are but two aspects of the same thing, as I alluded to in my previous post, then what makes the opinion of one, any more valid than the opinion of the other? For example, if I say that I'm a genius, and you say that I'm an idiot, which of us is right? Remember, we may each simply be one aspect of the whole. What the conscious "I" holds to be subjectively true, doesn't necessarily reflect what's objectively true. In fact it could be argued that it's the "non-I" that's reflective of what's objectively true, and not the "I".

By this I mean, that if I ask you where the world came from, you may respond that God created it, and this is your subjective belief. But in reality, you can't be certain that this is true, and the "non-I" may simply be a reflection of this uncertainty. The world may embody theism, and naturalism, and idealism, and materialism, and creation, and evolution, and all the iterations thereof, because there's no way of knowing which of them is true. And so the "non-I" encompasses them all, with all the accompanying discord that such diversity necessarily entails. There's simply no way to harmonize nor eliminate this underlying uncertainty, and so as much as the conscious "I" may want to create an idyllic reality, it can't. Because it can't answer one simple question...where did I come from.

The conscious "I" may be torn by cognitive dissonance, generated by its inability to rationally answer that one inexplicable question, where did I come from. It may be that it wasn't the material world that gave rise to an immaterial consciousness, but rather the other way around. And the reason that consciousness doesn't create an idyllic reality, is because it can't. Because existence itself is irrational.

So the conscious mind does the best that it can to rationalize the irrational...its own existence.

I realize that there are any number of reasons why responding to this thread is irrational. For one, its author, YIOSTHEOY, hasn't been active for 7 months. Secondly, I've never read anything by Descartes beyond "cogito ergo sum". And thirdly, I only have a tenth grade education, so engaging in any significantly sophisticated discussion, is no doubt beyond my capabilities. But what I do have, is forty years of being a self-professed solipsist, along with an inordinate amount of time to ponder its implications.

That being said, one of the perplexing problems of "I think therefore I am" is how to define the "I" without the corresponding context of the "non-I". As with all things, "I" would only seem to have meaning as it relates to something else. Just as hot only has meaning as it relates to cold, up only has meaning as it relates to down, and hard only has meaning as it relates to soft. It would seem that things can only be defined in contrast to something else. Thus the concept of "I" may be impossible to construct without the contrasting concept of the "non-I".

So even if the solipsist is correct, and all that exists is the "I", the "I" must still have two distinct aspects. That which perceives that I am, and that which gives context to what I am. The question for the solipsist then becomes, if these two things, the "I" and the "non-I", are but two aspects of the same thing, then how can one of them, the mind, be said to have given rise to the other one? If the "I" can't exist without the "non-I", then how can it be its cause?

The answer would seem to be that the "I" can't be responsible for the existence of the "non-I". Therefore there must be something else which is responsible for the existence of both of them. Thus it would seem, that even for the solipsist, three things can be known to exist, the "I", the "non-I", and that which gives rise to them. "Cogito ergo sum", followed to its logical conclusion asserts that reality must be triune in nature.

Now anything beyond this point becomes highly speculative, but it's possible to hypothesize about the nature of that which gives rise to the "I" and the "non-I", and about why reality looks the way it does. But that is best left to another time.

I'm new here, but I figured that I'd add my two cents to this discussion, and weigh in on the solipsistic side. The problem of solipsism may be impossible to resolve, but fundamentally it comes down to the problem of other minds, do they exist, or don't they? To begin to answer this question we have to examine the behavior of these other minds, and determine whether or not that behavior is indicative of independent existence, or not?

Using my own mind as a template (being the only example to which I have direct access) and assuming that I fall within the norm of conscious behavior, then I should expect other consciousnesses to behave in a similar manner. But do they? The answer is, no they don't. Specifically, they behave irrationally. Now determining whether a behavior is irrational or not is inherently subjective, and thus one must be careful in applying such a label. Keeping this in mind, let's examine the behavior of other minds for indications of irrationality.

If rational people like myself were on a popular game show in which they were asked to choose between three doors, each with an equal probability of concealing the desired prize, then one might expect a fairly equal dispersion of choices, as none of the choices affords the rational mind a clear advantage. If however we weight the choices such that door number one has a 20% chance of concealing the prize, door number two has a 30% chance, and door number three has a 50% chance of concealing the prize, then we would expect a completely different dispersion pattern. If each person applies a similar degree of rational thought to their choice, then the overwhelming choice should be door number 3. In fact, the disparity in choices should even surpass the 50% weighting given to door number three, because each rational mind should follow a similar line of reasoning, and come to a similar conclusion. The rational choice, is door number three. Thus the vast majority, and arguably even all of the choices, should be door number three.

The outcome would be completely different however if there was only one mind making the choices. Then the rational behavior would be to disperse the choices, either in a pattern commensurate with each door's weighting, or completely randomly. But putting all the choices on the most likely outcome, door number three, would be irrational. So the two different situations would result in two different patterns of behavior. Independent, yet equally rational minds, should choose door number three almost exclusively. A solitary mind on the other hand, should distribute the choices.

So the dispersion pattern should be different depending upon whether there are many independent, yet equally rational minds making the choices, or whether there's only one rational mind making the choices. This same discrepancy in patterns can be applied to the world around me. Do other minds exhibit behavior indicative of independent rational thought, or do they exhibit a type of collective behavior indicative of a solitary source?

To answer this question let's examine a simplified real world situation. Let's assume three choices, theism, atheism, or agnosticism. Which is the rational choice? Seeing as how the first two can't be empirically proven, the rational choice is number three, agnosticism. Thus if all minds have an independent existence, and are equally rational, then the vast majority of people should choose agnosticism. If however these seemingly independent minds are an illusion, then their behavior should exhibit a type of collective behavior, in which each of the possible choices are either equally expressed, or expressed to a degree commensurate with their probability.

So which is it? Does the world exhibit a behavior indicative of independent consciousnesses? Or does it exhibit a behavior indicative of a solitary consciousness, which is incapable of discerning the correct choice, and so manifests a world which embodies all of the choices? An argument could thus be made that the world looks like the product of one mind, not the product of many independent minds.

The fact that people behave irrationally, may be a significant indication that they're not objectively real. Reality may be the product of one solitary mind attempting to rationalize its own existence, and being incapable of doing so. Instead, expressing every possible explanation for that existence, with all the accompanying discord that such conflicting explanations entail. The world as we know it, may not be the product of many minds, but of only one.