I don't see it as an ethical issue at all since it doesn't really affect you unless you're watching them do it. Any concerns about it are likely a holdover from the times when humans were stupid and thought actions that didn't harm anyone else were immoral.

Could it be because Physics, after 5 centuries, still has not found the key relationship between Mind & Matter, or between Quantitative Substance & Qualitative Attributes, or between the Potentiality of Invisible fields & the Actuality of tangible objects? Could it be because Physics has atomized the world down to sub-atomic "particles" that are described as a "virtual" essence or simulation? Maybe it's because Physics has found that the foundation of the world is Mathematical instead of Material? Or that Gravity is no longer a physical Force, but a metaphysical mathematical "curvature" of empty space? If Quantum Physics, only statistically real, is not downright "spooky", as Einstein called it, it is literally Meta-Physical : beyond the scope of classical Physics. Yet, it remains within the scope of modern Philosophy. :nerd: — Gnomon

Mind does not exist, neuroscience killed dualism there. Qualia from what I have heard is a meaningless attribute that caries no real worth.

Physics has not found that the foundation of the world is mathematical, it's still material just not in the way we thought it was. But it literally does not impact our day to day, and metaphysics even less so. Gravity is still a physical force. It's not Meta-Physical, it's not beyond the scope of classical physics, that's like calling biology that. It is a branch than deals with phenomenon at the quantum level of particles. Classical physics still works at our level but not quantum physics.

I know you WANT metaphysics to be useful but it's not. Quantum physics is not even in the same league as metaphysics so it's fallacious to think there can be an association between the two.

The reason we are still debating the same metaphysics as in the beginning is because there is no solution to metaphysical questions. It just boils down to what people want to believe and that's it. None of your definitions change any of that.

Waves, particles, fields - how they can be consolidated in the mind, now there's a challenge for metaphysics. — jgill

This is an error in the interpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation. Consciousness does not play a role in QM. The term "observation" just means any sort of interaction with the system, not a conscious agent.

Neither one. I just question the distinction you make between forms of skepticism.

I’d like to push back somewhat on the idea that philosophy isn’t important, or doesn’t have much value. To me, the value doesn’t lie in something tangible or quantifiable, but in how you experience life. I feel that people interested in philosophy naturally find the world to be more mysterious and interesting than others, and I think doing philosophy feels purposeful, and I say that as essentially a nihilist. But there’s something that feels meaningful about discovering answers (or discovering that there are no answers) to big questions that most people never consider. So I wouldn’t say it isn’t without merit. It probably won’t help you pay the bills or put food on your table, but it may provide meaning. I also think it adds depth to your experience. I don’t know how many TV shows, or books, or games, or movies that I’ve found to be more sublime because I was aware of the implicit philosophical themes throughout them. Themes I wouldn’t have been aware of or able to appreciate without some knowledge of philosophy. — Pinprick

I vehemently disagree. Life tends to become a net negative when you begin to question everything around you. As was mentioned in the past philosophy does not answer questions it asks them. So far in my foray into it there were no answers to the questions posited. A lot of views for sure, but no real answer. It also has the habit of annihilating meaning, not providing it. Philosophy is the organon of extinction as one person put it. The same when it comes to movies. Once you start digging into their themes and the like the magic is gone.

It's ironic in a sense, but life is more meaningful and magical if you don't ask questions.

If we started allowing metaphysics into quantum physics we will get the same thing that metaphysics has yielded for the past thousand years, nothing.

IMO Metaphysics is the most useless branch of philosophy.

It's not jumping from A to Z it's being open to the possibility. But even then you example of the friend doesn't apply to that of reality when it's becoming clear each day that our perception of it does not match the way it actually is. Color is a huge example as it does not exist outside our heads.

I'm just going where the evidence leads. I mean color doesn't exist in the world outside our minds after all. Sounds like more evidence for the radical skepticism and not so much the measured one. You still haven't addressed my point about the arbitrary line you draw between the two.

If you wanted to be reasonable in your skepticism you would have to admit that you don't know if other people are conscious, it's just a hope that you aren't alone. I mean you can only verify your own experience right? Sounds like your version of reasonable skepticism is wishful thinking.

”

I’ve been asking myself that question from when i was a kid – I can see how i have always WANTED to BELIEVE that other people think and feel and experience stuff inside their head/themselves, just like me — yet, i could never get over the FACT that when i am looking at them with my eyes, i see none of that going on – i am just seeing a picture. Yet the picture looked so much like my picture that I didn’t want to accept that maybe what i think about what other people think and feel and experience ‘within themselves’ isn’t actually real and really only exist in my own head/’consciousness’ and i truly am ‘alone’ in my ‘consciousness’/’inner experiences’ as ‘thoughts, feelings and emotions’.

Because, that would then imply that i am ALONE here, ALONE in existence, AS existence – and even though common sense deduction of the FACTS would indicate that to be reality, i see how i started to, throughout my life, deliberately convince myself that what exist inside of myself as my ‘mind’, exist within others as well through ‘interpretative perception’, even though i could not and cannot possibly see this for real – as i cannot actually open up the head of another human and see the thoughts and feelings – just so that i would not feel so alone or have to realize that i am alone.

Because, what would it imply to be/exist ALONE here? It would imply that i am responsible for all that exist here as this world/reality that i am seeing with my eyes, as it all IS me, just me, alone, here. It would imply that i am ‘God’ and all that exist here is my creation — it would also imply that i would have to face the fact that i have never been aware of being ‘God’ and of when, how or why I created this existence in the first place — which scared the living shit out of me. So, i took the road of self-deception and pretended that i am ‘not alone’ because ‘other people feel what i feel, they think what i think – and i am my thoughts and feelings, so that means that i am not alone responsible for what is here’. Though what i have had to come to terms with is the deliberate self-deception in convincing myself that i am this ‘system’ of ‘thought, feeling and emotion’, while deeeep down within myself I kind of know that that is not really who i am – i simply brainwashed myself deliberately into losing myself within that system to just not have to face the FACT that i am ALONE here.

This is the sad reality of it because it is the FACTS – as i can see that ‘consciousness’ as what i believe about what ‘other people’ think, believe, feel and experience, still only exist within MY MIND — so, it’s a matter of making that decision: will i stop fooling myself and face the FACTS that ‘consciousness’ is my own self-made illusion or will i continue hiding within myself to not face the ‘God’ that is me and the enormous responsibility that comes with it?”

Again no. Also I wouldn't argue that four is a metaphysical object, it's a concept. You are trying to attribute to metaphysics what doesn't belong. What you are showing is an atom which is a "ball" but at the base level everything is made of fields. It's not math dude.

Also don't cite equations if you don't understand the math behind it.

Again no. Fields are not mathematical abstract definitions, they can essentially be called energy for lack of a better term. The models can be studied physically. All these fields are in fact made up of particles themselves.

Again you aren't a physicist so your citations don't matter on the subject. I've spoken to those who do know this but they could only give the short answers to it without teaching me.

Not exactly. The thing about quantum physics is that there are atoms and they are "solid" for all intents and purposes. I don't know the specific answer but they told me that no is does not say that nothing exists, it just means reality isn't what we thought. But quantum mechanics did not unseat materialism.

But others accept the fact that they consist of nothing more than abstract virtual mathematical information. — Gnomon

This is still debated but the answer seems to be no, they are made of fields. They are NOT studied in metaphysics and are still in the realm of material physics. It's also worth noting that Quantum physics breaks down at particles above a certain size. Ergo it doesn't explain anything about our day to day lives and the principles don't apply there. That still doesn't stop idiots from trying to suggest it does.

As much as those who study Metaphysics WANT to believe that QM opens that door, they will be sorry to see it does not. QM is high level math and the varied interpretations are just attempts to explain what the math is saying, it's more for the public to be honest. But if you have no degree in the subject you will not understand what they are getting at. Which is how misinformation on the topic proliferates. As you can see in the link we get a lot of people either using the terms incorrectly to make their point or just outright saying that quantum physics says X when it doesn't in the slightest. Though to correct the misinformation would require teaching the public the subject and that is not as attractive as the interpretations.

"Trained mystics" is the equivalent of saying you're a level 110 Warlock in World of Warcraft.

I don't think so. You are attempting to draw a line between justifiable and radical skepticism when the evidence on hand seems to lean more towards radical skepticism. I've already mentioned a few of the many examples of how flawed our senses are and how easy they are to mislead. Your position of "justifiable" is not tenable. I've given you plenty of quotes that explain why.

In regards to the friend lying it's not unreasonable to be open to the fact they might turn into Hitler next week. It's unlikely to occur but it could happen. It also would make you doubt their words in the future because they did it once. Scientists are also human and therefor prone to the same errors and lapses in judgment that the rest of us are so why should they be trusted? Why should I trust their observations when one cannot prove they have observations, etc?

I think trying to draw a line between justified and radical is just splitting hairs. It's all skepticism, the question of where to stop speaks more to the comfort level of the person not the topic.

Sorry about that quote, this one is better. The question is on "how you do prove the existence of anything beyond one's perception".

All evidence you will ever encounter is evidence of your own perception and nothing else. There is no evidence available, not of the type you seek. Neither will logic nor reasoning, nor anything similar help you; they are perceived as well, and not only that, they all rest—down on the very deepest level—on assumptions. This is true for any theory, without fail. These assumptions are for you to discard (or cling to) as you see fit, since there is no evidence for them either.

The very idea of "proof" is just an instance of the longing of mankind. This longing for stability and security is born out of our fear. "What if there is nobody else?" "What if I'm imagining it all?" "What if..." But such questions will not suffice. "Someone else" is clearly in the realm of ideas and hope. At least, you have no means to conclude anything else; nobody does! People will scream and shout; they will do anything to deny this fact. Remember this, and you will probably start noticing it yourself.

So in the end, one doesn't know whether everything is as it seems. That's all there is to it. You may very well keep believing in the "stuff out there," that's fine, but remember that it will always remain a belief. You could argue that solipsism is completely useless (it is, under most definitions of "use"), but know that it is not less true just because of that.

The rest is up to you. Embrace or deny; each option will bring both joy and sorrow. Good luck.

Is it though? I mean there is literally tons of evidence that show how fallible our sensations are. The biggest one being how we don't perceive all of reality itself and the things that we build are based on our imperfect sensations. So if it's imperfect all the way down then how can any of that be called knowledge? Neither you nor I can verify the existence of anything "outside" of us or whether it exists. It's something that must be taken on faith. You call it extreme but is it? I mean when there are so many examples of the fallibility and imperfection of a medium on what grounds do you have to believe what you are perceiving is the truth?

I heard it mentioned that any branch of knowledge is based on faith, faith that our observations are true observations and that we aren't being misled by some evil deity or whatever you want to call it. Like I quoted before, we cannot confirm or determine whether anything beyond our thoughts actually exists.

This is more than just a friend telling one lie, and astrology has no evidence to support it. There is plenty of evidence to show how imperfect our senses are. Even the philosophers of old knew this and began to question whether what we see or experience is really "there". In the end one can never know.

I am a solipsist as is everyone else (you too) — most believe there is actually an external reality peopled with other minds.

In my solipsistic worldview, each of our realities exist in superposition with all other realities. To each of us there is only our personal reality which is formed by our brains through consciousness, which constructs a mashup of external stimuli, transduced via our sense detectors into meaning and internal stimuli from memory, beliefs, dreams, and ideas (also via consciousness) which color our perception (perception is reality) of externally experienced (putatively shared) reality.

As we create each other ~7.5 billion potential creations (to use an electronics analogy, most of those potentials (other minds) are buried in our background noise, practically speaking we only create images of those of whom we are aware from signals which can be distinguished from the noise much the same as a time slice of superposed sounds in a recording.) Those signals (entities) are strengthened in proportion to our awareness, the emotional investment with which we imbue them, or by proximity, immediate or extended (a prime example of extension being social media).

This all happens in superposition. Our immediate realities occupy the local environs in overlaid dimensional layers and they seem to be spatiotemporally oriented, more or less. This creates the illusion of a common experience. We mostly agree this illusion (as we don’t realize that it’s an illusion) generally comports to a framework that facillitates social convention and harmony, albeit subconsciously.

All experiences are unique to the individual’s perception (perception is reality) and shared by co-creation of the event. Sometimes people’s perceptions are so out of sync with each other’s that there can be no agreement, comportment or even acknowledgement that the “shared” event could be other than the individual’s manufactured experience (cf. Trump’s perception vs. the press.)

What could skepticism that everything we observe and know about the world is fake possibly be grounded in? Doubt has to be based on something, we can't just doubt things just for doubt's sake. — Saphsin

Besides the optical illusions, the fact that our senses don't perceive all reality, dreams, the effects of psychotropic substances on our perceptions, the rubber hand illusion when it comes to selfhood, do I need to continue? I mean the senses have been a subject of doubt for as long as philosophy has existed, likely with the Allegory of the Cave. Most people who espouse solipsism say "how can you prove otherwise".

Solipsism is recognizing that you can't prove, or even determine, whether anything outside of your thoughts exists. So solipsism is a fact. But I guess you are asking whether it's possible that the world as you perceive it doesn't exist.

You see my point?

That's been my issue, that just because someone believes something means there is some truth to it, there isn't. That was my mistake.

The problem I have is the extreme end, where you really get challenged. Where what you thought to be certain and obvious turns out to not be so. I'm still trying to process that I can't prove or determine if anything outside my thoughts exists. The external world is something I took for granted until philosophy challenged that. That would be an example of where challenging your assumptions is a bad thing and where I fail to see the merit of doing so. Even challenging how I know things (or how do you know you know). Please enlighten to my the merit of tearing asunder my certainty of others and external reality.

In my experience a lie can also avoid disaster and give peace of mind to troubled folks. Refusing to be comforted and erring on the side of caution in my experience tends to pan out poorly.

I can understand that skepticism of some things has merit, but from what I gathered it's far removed from the practice of the skeptics of old who doubted pretty much everything and in some instances held no beliefs (Pyrrhonism).

You can look at the current president as an example of how doubt is a slippery slope, people are losing faith in the institutions that run this country because of one guy. He might as well be the definition of solipsism because he certainly doesn't live in our reality, but that emboldens others and with fake news on top of that doubt is everywhere and reality is what you want it to be. Doubt is indeed a slippery slope and the more you practice it the more you begin to unknowingly doubt things that are fundamental to your sanity. Although this is speaking from personal experience and from some philosophy majors I spoke to in my school (and professors).

I'm seriously asking by the by.

My issue is where does one draw the line. At what point is skepticism too far and according to whom? I mean these standards that we set are essentially just arbitrary at the end of the day right?

Do you deny that it would be a more pleasant society if people weren't homophobic and that's a "better" way of running society? Not so different from other normative questions like "how to play better chess" or "how to be a better scientist" They're objective claims given certain assumptions we adhere to. How to be a better human being among others is another one of them. Just because they're not exactly the same as scientific claims doesn't mean they're just empty words. — Saphsin

Better is not objective though even with assumptions. I mean why assume X is better than Y? I wouldn't argue that society would be better if people were not homophobia because that wouldn't be a true statement. It would be true to say it would be different but not better. Even better chess or be a better scientists are subjective claims that aren't grounded in solid "hard" rules.

All this is the result of challenging your assumptions, at some point there is nothing left and you have to rely on illogical leaps of faith to get out.

UPDATE: I backslide a little bit because on quora I see a handful of people saying that it is true.

https://www.quora.com/The-idea-of-solipsism-is-driving-me-nuts-Is-a-solipsistic-world-a-likely-possibility

Solipsism is recognizing that you can't prove, or even determine, whether anything outside of your thoughts exists. So solipsism is a fact. But I guess you are asking whether it's possible that the world as you perceive it doesn't exist.

The answer is that it's not only possible, a logical case can be made that it's likely.

For example, the Simulation Argument goes like this:

It's pretty clear that computers will eventually be so powerful that even a normal household pc can simulate a whole person's life so well that someone inside the simulation can't tell it's not real. If that happens, and becomes common, there will quickly end up being more simulates people than real people, so the odds will be that any given person is a simulation. And there's no reason to think that hasn't already happened, and you're inside such a simulation.

On the other hand, I have some good news:

You're definitely not the only real person, because I know I (or at least my thoughts and perceptions) exist.

So now you can let me know if you are real, and we'll be set.

Well except that's exactly what a fake person would say. So we're screwed.

Or at least I am.

I don't honestly know if the simulation hypothesis is evidence for it. I mean that's just another thought experiment. But it seems like the argument here is that you can't prove or determine whether anything outside your mind exists. I agree with the "prove" part, not sure about the determine aspect of it.

If this is what they are defining as solipsism then yes, I would have to begrudgingly concede that I can't prove or determine whether anything outside my mind exists. I won't say it doesn't, and it still doesn't explain how my mind is generating all this stuff without any source material to work with.

How do I deal with people saying it's true or a fact?

I can still question the need to challenge beliefs knowing how bad the process can go.

It was mentioned earlier that I use practical skepticism and recognize when it goes too far, but then again who decides what is "too far" or practical.

It's not really a contradiction. I know that morality or labeling something as moral doesn't mean more than the sound of the word, but as a gay man trying to live my life I have a vested interest in challenging homophobia.

I have laid out my point though. I only really got into philosophy because it was deemed to be "smart" and "good" to challenge one's views, despite that fact that in doing so it resulted in misery. A running trend I see in some philosophy majors is regret in having their assumptions challenged. I mean not everyone pulls away from solipsism so easily. Though people who say it's true are wrong as it can never be known.

Your essay against nihilism is rather weak, same with solipsism. Moral nihilism I would argue is true as there isn't an objective standard for it. Doesn't mean have no morality or meaning, but recognizing there isn't a capital T version of it.

This isn't about you and neither was my thread about solipsism.

Well the problem I have with challenging beliefs is that you end up with something like solipsism as a result. I mean at what point do you stop? What merit is there in being rational if I have no ground to stand on? I understand that some views like homosexuality being immoral need to be confronted, but not everyone is like that. The universe is vast and scary, there doesn't seem to be any real reason for us to be here or even continue existing. What harm is there in beliefs that offer comfort and solace in an indifferent reality? Also better person? That depends on what someone means by "better". Why is challenging yourself an improvement? According to whom? Isn't morality more or less what people say it is and not because there is any inherent good to it?

But doesn't philosophy have to start with axioms, statements that cannot be proven? What high ground does one have to chide others for their unreasonable beliefs when a philosopher is ultimately no different?

I just think if no one else is being harmed then it doesn't matter what folks believe. They don't need to challenge themselves if they are doing fine.

Honestly the replies remind me of Death from Discworld and his take on it (well Terry Pratchett).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi1atm2HkS8

I mean it's unproveable, well un "anything" really. You can't attack or defend it. I figured why waste time on it.

Actually I meant to say it's not egoistic.

Also it's not really ad hominem since there is a pattern among those who decry love the way you do. It's not really rooted in logic but more negative personal experience with it.

If that was true, you wouldn't need to defend yourself as much as you did. — Gus Lamarch

This is sort of false reasoning. I am explaining myself in regards to your claim about such a love not existing but all you seem to do is assume my feelings and what they mean. I never said it to be accepted by myself, you are reading into things that aren't there. I am merely qualifying the love I have for my dogs. You are making a claim about love but I am giving evidence on why that claim is false. There are also plenty of other people who also exhibit unconditional love or love that isn't egoic. I think you have a narrow conception on the matter.

I'm just saying that this love is not as deep as you think it is. — Gus Lamarch

I would have to disagree with this.

Either way, I wouldn't go by your argument on love.

Having loved and lost many times I can honestly say this is not true.

You underestimate me then. I would not hesitate to die for them if I knew if would save them. I don't say I have unconditional love to feel better about myself or label myself as noble, most people don't even know that and I don't tell them. It's just how I would qualify how I feel about them. I wondered if such a love existed and I did doubt it, until I found myself feeling it for my dogs. It's definitely egoistic.

And like I said there are plenty of Buddhist monks and some "enlightened" folks who would beg to disagree with your claim.

I would argue that your denial of it's existence makes you sound jaded or edgy rather than say anything about the love itself.

I mean isn't what is rational and logical just based on human judgments? To me I think philosophy isn't taken that seriously because it's just glorified opinions. There doesn't seem to be a "right" answer. Most people tend to take right and wrong for granted or given without wondering why that is.

Also I thought idealism was debunked.

I find it odd that he suggests that the position of solipsism is supported by his observations (early on in the thread).

I can't say I agree with it being egoistic, or that there is no unconditional love. I have unconditional love for my dogs, and I have the property damage to prove it. Nothing they do can make me stop loving them.

Also I think a few Buddhist monks might say otherwise.

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4846074/fpart/1/vc/1

Well the OP in the thread thinks that we are presupposing the existence of a thing to interact with but does not elaborate on that. He also thinks that it is the end result of Occam's Razor, but that is debatable to be honest.

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/17145957#17145957

Other topics say that solipsism just says that one cannot know if other minds exist or other consciousness but it doesn't deny such things just that you can't know for sure. If this is the claim then I can agree with that. I cannot know for sure. It's all induction. But Occam's Razor seems to point against solipsism not for it, but even then Occam's Razor doesn't make something right.

But to answer the question of how do I know? I don't for sure. I read things, test them and if it works then that's how I know. But for this I can't really test it.

Yes I realized that now. I find it comical how many misuse the theorems.

There was a reply on the Reddit page for solipsism that helped me out a lot:

A thing being logically sound =/= that thing being true. In fact since the idea that the world is as it seems is logically sound, that argument is self defeating.

If you want to throw around philosophical razors and logical gizmos, Occam’s razor is the idea that the simpler more mundane explanation is more often the correct one. So we have a) the world is as it presents itself, or b) everything is a lie and you are the only real thing in this world. Occam’s razor is really firmly against solipsism. However, just as something being logical does not necessitate its truth, Occam’s razor does not dictate truth either.

I’d also point out while we are on the subject of Razors that Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword (for an idea to be worth discussing as a true possibility it must have demonstrable consequences), Hitchen’s razor (he who makes the claim must provide proof, a claim without proof requires no evidence to dismiss), and Sagan’s Standard (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) are all also firmly against solipsism.

https://www.reddit.com/r/solipsism/

Though browsing the Reddit for it helps show me how stupid it is from an outside perspective. People tend to interpret it as something spiritual or whatnot, saying we are all one (which is NOT what it says, even the wikipedia page clarifies that on the Eastern religions).

I totally agree with you here. Unfortunately, when strict logic and one's individual, immediate perception suggest something, it moves out of the realm of "ad ignoratiam" as you put it.

This was a follow up to my original quote about who positing the existence of anything else is faith.

For what it's worth, on some level I don't think "Strict logic" would point to solipsism. To me that is more about doubt that anything else, which most people wouldn't unless their senses fail to a drastic degree. I don't think an average logical person would conclude they are the only thing in existence or that they are the only thing they can know to exist (which is one thing I doubt about solipsism). I mean the difference between this world and my dreams is radical, so I don't consider this world "fake" because I would have to know what's real (and that can literally be turtles all the way down). A reasonable person would look at all this and not conclude they made it or it's not real unlike they woke up from it or looked at it from the outside. So in order to prove solipsism true it would have to be false.

Solipsism dose not take into account the relational nature of existence, it makes no comment on this issue whatsoever. Nothing can exist relative to itself. A human being is born. A human being is a living organism, that has evolved in the biosphere, so it has evolved relative to the biosphere. A human organism must exchange gases, heat, take in water, food, excrete entropy, etc, as well as interpret sensory data from the information surrounding them. Note you have evolved various senses to interpret sensory data relating to the information external to you. Sorry to put it this way, but you are a system evolved to interact with an external world, and other people. — Pop

There's still that pesty "last thursdayism" where everything you knew and all that was sprung into being last thursday. I'm also sure there is an argument for what you are saying about an external reality (again I urge folks to look at the links, it's a quicker read than it looks).

But I do highly doubt solipsism is the truth because of...well everything around me. I find it highly unlikely I made everything so tuned like this, also why would there be a dream where anything can happen and this world. Even if I don't have hard evidence for an external reality, if I were to comply with his STRICT LOGIC the explanation would be an external reality. It would explain how there is a dream where anything happens, and this reality where everything is stable and enduring. As for my mind and self being the only thing to be known to exist, I disagree. That's an assumption, especially since I don't even know what a mind is truth be told.

If I want to Occam's Razor an external reality is the simplest explanation, I don't see how Occam's Razor leads to solipsism like they claim because to me that just complicates things.

Still, it's...odd to doubt the people you've known for so long. It's scary to invest in them in case they aren't real. Scary to know that when I die there is a chance all of this could be lost and nothing I would do would matter. What point is there in helping others if you don't know if they are even real? Such fears are hard to shake. Makes me wish I never heard of it. You have to understand how little it means to hear other people tell you they exist when a counterpoint could argue that they are just programmed that way.

I suppose sensation is being as opposed to not being. Without sensation, there is nothing, which is inconceivable to the conscious mind. Stop moving completely for a moment, stop thinking, do not attempt to rationalize anything and just be still. Your state of being at that time will be the only thing in existence from your perspective, to assume that anything else is existing will require faith. I guess I can't give you a concrete answer because you are still presupposing that you are experiencing a "thing." Why does this have to be so? When you tear down the labels and rationalizations behind everything you'll find there is no longer any point of reference, and no coherency. You are left with nothing but the sensation of your own isolated perception, with no clear source or meaning in sight.

It's just that the doubt gets me thinking and it worms it's way in. I've always taken this sort of thing for granted in the past, that other people exist, external reality, etc. I never doubted that until it was asked "how do I know"? I don't have an answer. How do I even know I am experiencing a thing?

https://www.quora.com/Is-solipsism-a-satisfying-philosophical-thought

The first answer here says the Incompleteness Theorems says that all truth is ultimately solipsistic and that nothing can be proved without resorting to unproveable premises. Also the Boltzmann brain thought experiment.

I get that everyone is trying to say to me that other people exist, but how do you know? How does anyone know?

I've been trying to do that so far, but it hasn't worked. Once I stop doing the things I find meaning in it comes back in to me. Even when I wake it comes back. I don't like problems with no solutions, or people saying that I am presupposing that I am experiencing a "thing" when solipsism doesn't argue that.

I would like to think that, but the man hasn't been on the forum for 5 years so I doubt I'll get a resolution to that question.

Nonetheless however, should one cease to find faith in either resolution, solipsism gifts you with a number of meaningful comforts. If the existence of your mind is all that can be known, then contemplate this: the entirety of the universe, its most dazzling recesses, the very nature and history of man and all its discoveries - in short, the complete and exhilarating narrative that has complemented your consciousness thus far, is a consequence of your own imagination.
How reassuring an eventuality is that? — Aryamoy Mitra

That rings hollow if I am all alone though. It's like if I won the lottery but had no one to celebrate, or being alone on your birthday. I'm sorry, but I just can't take any comfort in solipsism if it was true. But trying to tell myself that it's not true or that I don't believe it feels like I'm just lying to myself for comfort. I've had this before and the experience then was major unreality to the point that my driving was impacted. I somehow forgot about it, but it came back again because I never "got over it" because it has no solution. I don't now how to go on in life second guessing everything and everyone I meet. I mean if solipsism were true and one feels loneliness, why create all this? But then again it doesn't really say you made all this though, it just says that the mind is all that can be known to exist.

I've combed through a lot of arguments and forums on this so I can't relay everything or remember it all.

I would encourage looking at this one: https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4846074/fpart/2/vc/1#4846074

As the OP's replies kind of hurt my objections to it. I mean the minor saving grace is that the whole thread is just a "maybe", OP believes in it but says he treats it like it's real (still wrapping my head around it).

Other lines of reasoning say: "Nothing exists. Even if it did nothing can be known about it. Even if something could be known it can't be communicated. Even if it could be communicated it can't be understood".

Combined with my poor understanding of philosophy and how it all works and what a good argument or not (and the sting of reading how some folks say it's true), I'm sort of in the tempest without a boat.

Well one of the links I posted questioned why a mind would have to exist anywhere or what rule says that. It also says that solipsism doesn't argue that you can control reality. I would like to say that I can summarize the points but it's a long thread (6 pages) and there is a lot of points made. I don't want to post all of them if I can help it.

Also you say that I know other people exist, but the thing is I don't. I vehemently believe this, but I don't know it (not for sure). It's getting harder each day to be honest and right now I'm just doing this out of habit, but every now any then the full weight of solipsism dawns on me every now and then and it threatens to swallow me.

Sorry for the dense text but this is the post on solipsism as the default:

I will begin by saying that by any standard of proof, the onus is on an opponent of solipsism to prove solipsism is false. That is because solipsism is the default stance. You exist, and that is all you can be sure of. Basic Descartes which has not been shown to be false. The best argument against Cogito is that 'maybe you only think you exist' but this argument can never get off the ground since this already implies the Cogito. (How can you think something without existing?)

Now,

IT is important to define the different notions of solipsism.

First there is the notion that all that exists is your mind. This might encompass an experience.

If if encompasses an experience then nothing disproves solipsism. Your feeling something bump is just a sensation of yours, as is your sensation of being in control of things when you are. All that exists are the sensations, and they are what comprise your mind.

Mind might encompass experience plus action If it encompasses action then there must be something that you have action over. Therefor either you have action over all things or else you have action over some thing, IN WHICH case there exist multiple things.

Now solipsism can still hold true if you think the self has action over some of its 'body'. IF you think that the self is comprised of a body and a mind, then solipsism is still defualt, because quite simply, the things you experience, the 'people' you have relationships with are just part of your body, part that you do not have control over.

To deny solipsism in this sense is to say that other people have consicous minds, but this is not proven and in fact we have no way of proving this. We take it by faith.

If the self is considered to have control over all of itself, then solipsism is clearly FALSE because we do not have control of everything.


So the senses that solipsism is not disproven are:

All that exists is your experience, including your experience of control and of being affected by things that you percieve as 'other'.

Or

All that exists is your mind and your body. You have control over some aspects of the body, and not others. The body supplies your mind with sensations. The crucial point is that no other minds exist.


A sense that solipsism IS disproven is:

All that exists is you (either body+mind or just mind), and you have control over every aspect of yourself. This is not true because we simply dont have control over everything.


Solipsism is a most potent idea in the context of philosophy of MIND. Does your consciousness exist in a world with other consciousnesses or is it just your consciousness?

Since each consciousness only has access to its own consciousness, it has no way of proving that any other consciousness exists. Therefor the default stance is SOLIPSISM. Nevertheless this is hard to accept because we see other 'peope' who seem to behave just like us, therefor we infer INDUCTIVELY that other consciousness probably exists, unproven.

Well I was hoping people would leaf through the links I left and point out something that I missed in it.

You ask me to act on faith but that sounds very uncomfortable to me. When I think faith I think of religion and the like and that faith is sort of a weakness of the mind for those who can't accept reality. I wish I had the strength of mind to believe you guys but, I've just read several replies that make me question the notion of other people. Some on Quora say it's true because all we have is experience. To believe in others is faith. I'm not sure how to reply to the few who say it's true.

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

"There is no conceptual or logically necessary link between mental and physical—between, say, the occurrence of certain conscious experience or mental states and the 'possession' and behavioral dispositions of a 'body' of a particular kind."

You say it's no difference between a perfect illusion or a real deal, but the way I see it if this is just all in my head then nothing matters and I am truly alone. There is no family, friends, other people. There is no reason to treat anyone well or invest in this reality at that point because it all vanishes on my death. Were it real then it would be different because I would be impacting the lives of people and making a difference or change. But if it's not, well then I feel like nihilism would follow shortly after. It's why I can't take seriously that it doesn't matter, it does. I mean by that logic it would matter how I treat characters in a video game when that isn't true because they aren't real.

Also the link I provided explains how it's a straw man to say a solipsist can bend reality, solipsism does not assert that you can defy the laws of physics.

I've tried thinking about something else but this worms it's way into everything in my life because it shattered the certainty I had in an external reality. I'm not even sure how I'm still holding it together like this.

Well I'm embarrassed to admit that I poked around a few forums and got responses of people saying it's true, some saying it's not, some saying it doesn't matter, etc. The ones who said it was true stuck out the most in my mind.

I also browsed a few forums that had philosophy sections and two of them stuck out (I know that the site name might seem like it's sketchy but rest assured I don't partake in the stuff, I just found some people arguing about it there and I couldn't come up with a good rebuttal to their points):

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4846074/fpart/2/vc/1#4846074

(This one is the one that sort of shook my sanity on the subject)

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/14562023/fpart/2/vc/1#14562023

This is the one that maintained solipsism as the default and that realism is the one that needs to meet the burden of proof. I read through both but the first one gave me the most issues. I wasn't entirely convinced that solipsism is the default. People sometimes use the dream argument for solipsism but my point to that is that you only know that world was "fake" because you woke from it. It says nothing about the world you woke up in.

Nobody is cosmically alone. It is an impossibility. You cannot exist without the information surrounding you. The information surrounding you includes your friends, family, community, etc. Whilst you comprehend this information in your mind, it is real information from real sources - your peers, and a real physical world. Consciousness can not exist in the absence of integrated information, In my opinion, so external information is vital for consciousness. This means connection to externalities, without which everything would be ineffable. So don't worry, you are not cosmically alone, and can not possibly be. — Pop

I'm pretty sure that the reply I heard to this stance on the matter is that such a stance is not "known" it is a leap of faith to assume others and an external world. I would love for it to be an impossibility because I can ditch this ghost. But the information around me is just that, information. It doesn't make them real or existent. As my quote from the thread I read says, we presuppose that this information comes from a source or that we are experiencing some "thing". I don't mean to sound like a "butt" but I'm just saying what I've heard others say in response to such claims. I want to be over this, yes. But I don't want to cheap shot it, though I'm not sure what that entails.