But we don't understand the external world enough to refute solipsism or skepticism, or idealism and many other ideas. If we did have a better understanding of it, these problems need not arise. — Manuel

We actually do though, but that is not why you can't refute those ideas. Rather those are ideas science cannot test, as metaphysical claims we just cannot. Solipsism cannot be tested or proven because it says only your existence is certain and everything else is either doubtful or non existent. So it can't use any metric to support it's argument.

I suspect that by ‘really feel pain’ you mean ‘has qualia’, which, in that case, I agree and simply ask: what is the contention? — Bob Ross

It's pretty obvious what it is.

Again, by “never truly was”, I am presuming you are still operating under the assumption that in order for one to ‘feel’ they must have qualia: I am denying this. A ‘feeling’ can occur without being consciously aware of it. For example, imagine that you were stabbed right now: you would ‘feel’ it in the sense that your body would react to it and you would be conscious of that pain (assuming, from introspection, you know you are conscious). Now, imagine the same scenario except your conscious experience of that pain is not present (i.e., you are conscious of everything except the pain—so you can see them stab you, etc.): your body is still screaming out in agony (you just aren’t aware of it). Now, to clarify, this is a different scenario than one in which you are numb to the pain (where the pain isn’t occurring because, for example, you get morphine). The PZ thought experiment is predicated on the idea that your nerve endings are not malfunctioning, numbed by a drug, etc.: you are still screaming, still in agony, but you aren’t consciously aware of the pain. — Bob Ross

Again, no that is not what the PZ thought experiment is based on. A feeling cannot occur without being consciously aware of it. Your second example would simply not take place. The point is that a P-Zombie acts in all the ways a human would but it doesn't really feel anything. You have woefully misunderstood the thought experiment not to mention your example is just wrong.

I can tell if a person is genuinely concerned with my well-being based off of their behavior, which expounds their intentions. Yes, I cannot tell that they have qualia, but I can tell, for the most part, if they are narcassistic or not—nothing about this, by my lights (but correct me where I am wrong), requires qualia.

My spouse does nice things for me, sticks by my side through any times (good or bad), and constantly expresses behaviorally a love for me: that is all I require to define a person as ‘loving me’. Now, clearly you do not agree: for you, there must be qualia, a conscious experience which is aware of that expressed love, for the person to ‘truly’ love you. My question is: why? — Bob Ross

No you don't, you assume that. All that you said requires qualia. People can act a certain way but not really feel that way about you. They can perform the action but without the emotion it's not really care and concern. People lie all the time, lead people on, so you're just wrong here. It's not just the action they have to actually feel and have love for you, which a P-Zombie cannot, ever.

I am not entirely following: are you claiming that you can’t tell if someone is genuinely concerned about your well being because they don’t have qualia? Again, to me, if they are constantly demonstrating acts of love, then they love you: there’s no need for them to be conscious, to have corresponding conscious experiences of the events they actualize, to love me.

Yes, I do think that most people think that ‘qualia’ is ‘feelings’, but I disagree. What do you disagree with in terms of that assessment? — Bob Ross

Acts of love aren't proof of love, they have to have the feeling for it to be so. Again the fact you can't understand why the emotion behind it makes all the difference is telling. They have to be conscious otherwise it doesn't matter. Pretty much everyone knows this.

I think you are getting stuck on the ‘basic’ expositions of the PZ thought experiment: yes, it can be presented, in its most basic form, as essentially ‘qualia’ is ‘feelings’. I am making the argument that kind of basic form of the argument is wrong, but that isn’t the only argument (even in terms of basics) and certainly is not entailed by the basic definition I gave you. — Bob Ross

It is entailed in the basic definition you gave me. You can make the argument that the form of the argument is wrong but that doesn't matter, you're simply wrong in your assessment.

Your whole chain shows you don't get it.

I already know you have no arguments against it.

I don’t know where you got 5% of the universe from but I think we had data that showed the edge of the universe so we understand more of it than you think we do.

Also we can make a ton of sense of the external world, that’s how we have modern society.

Again not a real counterpoint.

The whole purpose of the PZ though experiment is to say that a person who is demonstrating signs of depression, suicidality, is crying, is screaming in pain, etc. may not be feeling it in the sense that they are not consciously aware of it happening. The PZ still cries: “those things” do not “stop” because they are a PZ. — Bob Ross

That’s not what it means. It’s to argue against an alleged inner life that might be occurring in the person. They don’t have qualia, hence the wording of “considered” as having it but not really.

This is what I meant by ‘ultra-feelings’: it isn’t enough that a person is going through pain in the sense that it demonstrable—they must also have ‘qualia’, a “conscious sensation”, along-with the pain. To clarify, it is not that pain is eliminated if one is a PZ but, rather, the conscious sensation allegedly corresponding with it. This is very important. — Bob Ross

Again you misunderstand the PZ. It acts and has all the normal actions of pain but doesn’t really feel pain. Pain is eliminated as a PZ or rather it never truly was. You’re butchering the thought experiment to fit your narrative.

Regardless of whether they are a PZ, my spouse still demonstrates every possible indicator of loving me fervently—there is no need to add in an extra property required to meet the definition of ‘feeling’ to me. Yes, I am saying that one doesn’t need ‘qualia’ to feel: maybe that is what you fundamentally disagree with? — Bob Ross

There actually is a need to add that extra property. It’s what makes the difference. The fact you can’t see that is..telling.

When you determine a person is genuinely upset vs. they are not, you do so by indicators which will never provide information about if they have ‘qualia’. They are either demonstrating genuine concern or they aren’t regardless of whether they are a PZ or not. Again, I am claiming one can be concerned without having qualia. — Bob Ross

And again you’d still be wrong. One needs qualia to be concerned. I can ACT like it but it matters whether I feel it or not. Again people can tell.

Think of it this way: imagine a chronically depressed person. They are crying, in visible torment, lethargic, etc.: the solipsist can still rightly point out that they could not have qualia. But this is independent of whether they are sincerely crying, sincerely in torment, etc.: whether there is a corresponding, special, and ‘along-with’ sensation to the crying and torment is irrelevant. — Bob Ross

Again no. If they don’t have qualia or feelings then they aren’t sincerely anything. You keep making up stuff like “ultra feelings” when the feeling behind an action makes all the difference. It’s just basic.

Again you’re not getting it. Did you even finish the math link?

What I meant is that the processing argument doesn’t hold, rather it only needs to “render” what is around you not the globe.

My point was that the missing feelings in a philosophical zombie has, in actuality, no bearing on the ‘feelings’ which the average person, being a genuine person or a philosophical zombie, has: they still cry, they can hug you, they can demonstrate concern for you, etc. even in the case that they are a philosophical zombie. — Bob Ross

This point is still not true as when you realize they are a P Zombie then those things stop. It would have a bearing, especially since people can tell whether you mean something or not.

This is my point: this ‘ultra-feelings’ is just another part of humanity’s mythology. There’s no need for anything extra nor is there any evidence of it, and a being doesn’t have to go metaphysically beyond a complex bit of machinery to ‘have feelings’ (in a non-ultra sense). — Bob Ross

But there is a need for that “extra” because again people can tell. There is usually evidence for it but it’s not something you can test in a lab. It has to go beyond machinery to have feelings. What you’re saying is simply false.

I think you may have misunderstood me: I am arguing exactly that this is false. The reason historically people and animals were abused is based off of this false assumption: no, if a being is demonstrating obvious signs of being able to feel, being concerned, desiring, etc., then no matter if it is a lower life form or a robot, it thereby has feelings because that is the true standard of what it means to feel. — Bob Ross

And you’d be wrong. The reason people mistreated those before is they took their actions to be that of a machine, in other words they didn’t really feel anything or mean it.

I am just trying to convey to you that (I think) it is a false dilemma--as regardless of whether a person is a PZ, where they cannot ‘feel’ in this ultra sense, they are still demonstrating the capacity to love, feel, and desire just the same as yourself (in a non-ultra sense): — Bob Ross

Except no they are not because they are a P Zombie. Again your entire argument is nullified by the definition of a p zombie.

Again not an actual criticism. They would argue that they don’t have to be maintaining everything going on in their world just what they are aware of in that moment.

Ah so you’ve got nothing then.

Again, bring an actual criticism of it.

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

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

Absurdism isn’t even close to solipsism.

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

No one because there is no one else.

But they don’t talk to themselves.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

My point would only be that this: I Am!, is an action, a process; who we define ourselves to be, say, against the crowd, is not given to us as an inherent fact. People believe they have "thoughts", and those are precious gems that come from who they are, their identity as a singular person, something special from inside only them, when most of the time they are platitudes or regurgitation--though sometimes what is common is most true (it all depends). As Heidegger says: what is most thought-provoking is that we are not yet thinking. — Antony Nickles

So we are products of our environment. That's not really news, it's been a thing in psychology for a while.

I think I was trying to say the same thing. What I meant was that, yes, we have singular experiences but there is nothing that ensures our individuality (nothing taking the place of the metaphysical "mind"). — Antony Nickles

There is some amount of evidence against this. Who we are essentially comes down to genes, environment, and culture. Though somethings seem more or less innate to being human like how cultures around the world have similar structures but also key differences. Also how murder is generally looked down upon. There is plenty that ensures our individuality. Even the influences around us aren't a total guarantee of how we'll turn out.

Yeah I figured that a bit ago, dude just seems like a troll.

Pretty sure roads and stuff are maintained through state funds. Also private companies suck at maintaining infrastructure, just look what happen in Europe when the railways were privatized, it was a disaster.

You realize everything you do is only possible because of taxes right? Roads, infrastructure, etc. A lot of what keeps this society running and your ability to post on the internet is due to taxes.

People who call taxation theft are IMO idiots who don't understand how societies function.

Well it's not working. It's also kind patently clear that some parts of this are just flat out wrong or making leaps that don't really track, like why we allegedly need certainty or that there are no "Facts" about us.

The lack of replies would also lead me to believe no one really finds value in the OP so there's nothing to really learn.

Like, Cavell is just flat out wrong in is quote.

In fact the only reason I replied was because if the title and because you posted on my thread before. Other than that there is nothing here but questionable leaps in logic.

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.

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.

Already explained how rights mean nothing without a legal and governmental body to recognize and give them, and a society.

At this point it’s just willful ignorance

There are no such rights.

I just told you property has no meaning without a legal system and the recognition it brings. In fact that’s literally how it came about.

I think you’re just willfully stupid at this point, pretty much everyone is saying something similar to what I am.

This is math and science not philosophy. It talks about the energy of a given object of mass, only an idiot would take that to mean everything is energy.

There would be no rights if the government fell. It doesn't matter what you say rights only exist because of society and government. Property only has meaning under a legal body that recognizes and enforces it.

You can't get around it.

Because rights only exist in the context of a wider society and governmental system. You have no power to give that, but people as a collective do.

The idea that some men must work for governments in order for rights to be meaningful and useful is nonsense. I can confer a right to you and defend it just as any king or official can. — NOS4A2

No you can't.

I disagree. I think we do have a real version of ourselves, possibly by default. We also have an individual consciousness so long as you have a working brain, and thoughts and meaning.

In a sense everyone is special, I can't understand or relate to the majority of other people due to being on the spectrum. Yet even my own experience of being on the spectrum is different from others like me who are on the spectrum.

I'd also disagree on "There is no fact about you which constitutes your actions", this is obviously false. Just to use my case for example, being like this definitely constitutes my actions. Cavell was just wrong.

(Of course we can have individual experiences outside of language--like seeing a sunset that leaves us speechless--but those instances don't structure our relation to ourselves and others.) — Antony Nickles

Frankly, you don't know that to be the case.

Is that how you protect someone’s right to life, by begging the government to restrict our rights?

Or in other cases, abortion control, the right to life via not being chopped up in a womb and sucked out with a vacuum. All this talk of protecting life suddenly falls on deaf ears when this subject comes up. I don’t believe any of it.

What kind of weapon would you use to protect your children, should the need ever arise? Ballots and petitions? Beg a politician? — NOS4A2

Right's only have any meaningful use in the context of a government and legal system with enforcement methods. What you argue for, ironically, is only made possible by the thing you're against. Property rights have no meaning without a government to recognize it. Sure you can claim it's yours but unless you plan to defend it 24/7 there is nothing stopping someone from saying it's theirs and booting you off.

I do think there has to be stronger controls for gun ownership though. Having held and fired a gun before (at a range) I find it incomprehensible that folks wouldn't treat these things with more gravity than we currently do.