The Couch

Getting Past Solipsism

Comments on Getting Past Solipsism

batenswitch
New

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2011

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 1
Posted 11/30/11 - 1:44 AM:
Subject: Getting Past Solipsism
Is there any way to logically falsify/validate solipsism, and thus is there any way that existence can be proven/evidenced to be reality or just an illusion (or a mixture).

I recently stumbled upon this philosophical idea and it seems that everybody just ignores it and mocks it rather than actually addressing it.
longfun
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 29, 2011
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 15
Avatar longfun
Posted 11/30/11 - 6:05 AM:

If it starts from a metaphysical position that the world and other minds do not exist.
It seems to also denies its own existence (if it being a mind)
If it starts from a metaphysical position that the world and other minds are part of one mind (that of you, the only provable observer). The process logic makes a lot more sense. As in that case other minds are a consequence of you being you and vice versa. (you become the choice function)

thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
Posted 11/30/11 - 9:21 AM:

The first thing that comes to mind is that if Solipsism is true the rest of the world os a product of a particular individuals mind, if this is true, then with the proper focus that individual should be able to control that world. If events happen that you do not want to happen it would seem that your mind is not in control, also as you learn new knowledge where did that new knowledge come from, was it invented by your mind just to impress itself.

As an aside, from the physical aspect there is no way to prove that anything outside your own mind exists. All your preceptions are history, everything from the outside of you is of the past, and even the physical sensations of your own body, the only present is the thought you are having at that instand. Even as you read the words on the screen there is a slight delay till those words become part of your consciousness.
longfun
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 29, 2011
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 15
Avatar longfun
Posted 11/30/11 - 9:38 AM:

thedoc wrote:


As an aside, from the physical aspect there is no way to prove that anything outside your own mind exists.

The other minds are in that sense the paradox,not?
The other minds seemingly are but a group of statements constantly defying one's logic.
As long as they and the environment are...one is.
But one can't proof it as one's independent in one's head and depended outside it.

For any environment observed as non-empty, there exists a choice function defined on the environment.(choice function)
The obvious negation of solipsism (if seen as a choice function) would state that there must exist an environment which has no mind "in" it.
I don't really see it as a negation, rather a complement as in that case the environment would be the mind itself, not?


Thoughtsarethings
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2011
Location: Bronx NY

Total Topics: 4
Total Comments: 12
Posted 11/30/11 - 12:26 PM:

Reality exists in all our minds simultaneously. The fact that you are able to think proves that you are not an illusion of my mind.

On the other hand, this also can be interpreted another way. The universe may be concious. Think of the billions of complex cellular networks that make up your body. Are they concious of themselves? We are concious because they are... concious?

You could argue that knowledge of these organisms and the universe are just illusions too.

Is it possible that we make up a much larger "mind" that is concious of it self, and we are just illusions of it...

henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 11/30/11 - 1:16 PM:

I know I exist (I self-reference, self-interrogate).

I know something exists 'outside' of me (I'm too friggin' dumb to make up all the shit that's around me).

My senses, as each apprehends the world, seem to bring me accurate enough information about what is 'outside' for me to adequately navigate in the world (all the shit 'outside' of me that I didn't, can't, make up).

So, for me, solipsism is refuted, and *direct/quality realism is affirmed.









*the notion the world (what's 'outside' me) is largely as I perceive it...my perception (the totality of my senses) do not bring to me the entire picture, so to speak...what I perceive is only a small 'slice' of things...but: what I 'do' apprehend is real, if fragmented.
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
Posted 11/30/11 - 2:04 PM:

Thoughtsarethings wrote:
Reality exists in all our minds simultaneously. The fact that you are able to think proves that you are not an illusion of my mind.




The difficulty is that you cannot prove in your own mind, that I exist and am conscious. What Henry says about not being able to make stuff up is true enough consciously, but there is a subconscious mind or awareness that most are blissfully unaware of and there could be the source of all the stuff you think you can't imagine.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 11/30/11 - 2:11 PM:

"...there is a subconscious mind or awareness..."

I disagree. Sure: there's a whole lot of things that aren't at the 'front' of my mind (meaning there's a whole bunch of stuff at the 'back'), but none of it is hidden or inaccessible.

Never accepted the sub-, un-, conscious as anything but a coke fever of Freud's.
Re-ed
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 29, 2011
Location: elsewhere

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 19
Avatar Re-ed
Posted 11/30/11 - 2:41 PM:

batenswitch wrote:

I recently stumbled upon this philosophical idea and it seems that everybody just ignores it and mocks it rather than actually addressing it.


It makes no sense to discuss this with another. 'Everybody' can safely ignore it, as it can only be true of 'one'. There is no refutation, but in raising the issue with another it is already being denied.
longfun
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 29, 2011
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 15
Avatar longfun
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 11/30/11 - 4:29 PM:

henry quirk wrote:
I know I exist (I self-reference, self-interrogate).

I know something exists 'outside' of me (I'm too friggin' dumb to make up all the shit that's around me).

My senses, as each apprehends the world, seem to bring me accurate enough information about what is 'outside' for me to adequately navigate in the world (all the shit 'outside' of me that I didn't, can't, make up).

So, for me, solipsism is refuted, and *direct/quality realism is affirmed.

Duality is but a premiss as well and it has a fundamental limit, within it is impossible to simultaneously measure your present position while also determining the future motion of your environment.

Solipsism behaves as Occam's razor. Sure duality makes it possible to describe our outer environment and the others as moving around each-other, but that explanation is unnecessarily complex compared to this simple ignored observation that all the environment emerges from within you. (I do like the complexity, the continuous adding of redundant paths, but can't ignore the simplicity)
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 11/30/11 - 5:23 PM:

Duality is useful in describing preceived reality, but abandoning duality to simplify, leaves you with "So this is nothing but a Dream?"
longfun
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 29, 2011
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 15
Avatar longfun
#12 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 12/01/11 - 5:37 AM:

thedoc wrote:
Duality is useful in describing preceived reality, but abandoning duality to simplify, leaves you with "So this is nothing but a Dream?"

As "real" as a dream can be.
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#13 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 12/01/11 - 8:54 AM:

Re-ed wrote:


It makes no sense to discuss this with another. 'Everybody' can safely ignore it, as it can only be true of 'one'. There is no refutation, but in raising the issue with another it is already being denied.



It could be true of several, but then the question is are all the consciousnesses sharing a single preceived reality, or does each have it's own seperate reality, or are the various realitys only partially overlapping. The shared and overlapping realities could help to explain the other things that are not part of one individuals makeup but are new from another. Is our cognizant awareness really attatched to a body in a physical reality or are we simply floating in a void making everything up as we go?
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#14 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 12/01/11 - 8:56 AM:

longfun wrote:

As "real" as a dream can be.



I read somewhere about mystics who believed that with the proper meditation and focus the entire preceived reality would simply fade away leaving only the consciousness contemplating itself.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#15 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 12/01/11 - 9:48 AM:

"...all the environment emerges from within you..."

My perception of environment emerges from within me...but: the environment/reality/the world exists independent of me, is 'outside' me.

This whole 'life is but a dream' notion: hooey.

##

"...are all the consciousnesses sharing a single perceived reality, or does each have it's own separate reality..."

If we -- you and me -- are burning together in a house fire, I'd say that's all the 'proof' either of us needs to establish we -- you and me -- live in the same 'here' and 'now'.

Certainly our perceptions of the event (flesh burning) are subjective, but the event itself (fire eating away at you, at me): independent of how either of us perceives it.

#

"Is our cognizant awareness really attached to a body..."

Not attached, no...you ARE your body...there is no *mind/brain, soul/body split...you are the flesh; the flesh is you.









*you don't 'have' a mind, nor 'are' you a mind...you -- as organic, ongoing, autonomy -- 'do' mind...that is: you think, you don't have thoughts; you feel, you don't have feelings; you're aware (of world and 'you' in world), you don't have awareness.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#16 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 12/01/11 - 10:36 AM:

thedoc wrote:



I read somewhere about mystics who believed that with the proper meditation and focus the entire preceived reality would simply fade away leaving only the consciousness contemplating itself.



Raman Maharshi, Shankaracharya, Nisargdatta---and many more have suggested the same.
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#17 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 12/01/11 - 4:06 PM:

Thinker13 wrote:



Raman Maharshi, Shankaracharya, Nisargdatta---and many more have suggested the same.



Now, you seem to be very familiar with either Hinduism, Buddhism or both, you certainly are not bound to answer but I'm just curious?
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#18 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 12/02/11 - 11:44 AM:

thedoc wrote:



Now, you seem to be very familiar with either Hinduism, Buddhism or both, you certainly are not bound to answer but I'm just curious?




Both. Slightly familiar with Taoism.
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#19 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 12/02/11 - 2:06 PM:

Years ago I read Buddhism extensively, a little Hinduism and Taoism, but reading Joseph Campbell on Mythology has led me to think it all had the same origins so the path you take is less important than taking the path. A bit like Karate, years ago I was going to Karate Tournaments as a spectator, and I noticed that after the sparring match started they all looked the same. The style you studied didn't matter when it came down to winning the match. Religion is the same way if you eliminate all the window dressing the core comes from the same source. So when I go to church I do not get caught up in all the dogma and articles of faith, I'm looking for what is underneeth it all. What was the first belief and why did early man believe it? This should probably be on a seperate thread?
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#20 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 12/02/11 - 2:19 PM:

thedoc wrote:
Years ago I read Buddhism extensively, a little Hinduism and Taoism, but reading Joseph Campbell on Mythology has led me to think it all had the same origins so the path you take is less important than taking the path. A bit like Karate, years ago I was going to Karate Tournaments as a spectator, and I noticed that after the sparring match started they all looked the same. The style you studied didn't matter when it came down to winning the match. Religion is the same way if you eliminate all the window dressing the core comes from the same source. So when I go to church I do not get caught up in all the dogma and articles of faith, I'm looking for what is underneeth it all. What was the first belief and why did early man believe it? This should probably be on a seperate thread?



Yes, it would be good to start a new thread with this idea thedoc!smiling face
longfun
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 29, 2011
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 15
Avatar longfun
#21 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 12/02/11 - 3:16 PM:

henry quirk wrote:

Certainly our perceptions of the event (flesh burning) are subjective, but the event itself (fire eating away at you, at me): independent of how either of us perceives it.

#

"Is our cognizant awareness really attached to a body..."

Not attached, no...you ARE your body...there is no *mind/brain, soul/body split...you are the flesh; the flesh is you.

So why should "you" end at the boundary of flesh?
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#22 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 12/02/11 - 3:26 PM:

longfun wrote:

So why should "you" end at the boundary of flesh?



A good question. thumb up
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#23 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 12/02/11 - 5:18 PM:

"So why should "you" end at the boundary of flesh?"

'Cause there's not a stitch of evidence to suggest otherwise.

YOU are your BODY, your FLESH (in its entirety).

longfun is synonymous with the body that pokes itself in the chest with a thumb and says, 'Hi, I'm longfun, how are ya?'.

If you have, or any one has, an alternate notion, I'd be glad to rip it apart...HA!

Edited by henry quirk on 12/02/11 - 5:23 PM. Reason: addition
longfun
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 29, 2011
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 15
Avatar longfun
#24 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 12/03/11 - 3:49 PM:

henry quirk wrote:
"So why should "you" end at the boundary of flesh?"

'Cause there's not a stitch of evidence to suggest otherwise.

YOU are your BODY, your FLESH (in its entirety).

longfun is synonymous with the body that pokes itself in the chest with a thumb and says, 'Hi, I'm longfun, how are ya?'.

If you have, or any one has, an alternate notion, I'd be glad to rip it apart...HA!

I can see and understand why you see this fleshy boundary as a fundamental limit but this also affects your accuracy.smiling face

The more precisely you define your boundary, the less precisely the environment you are in can be controlled, determined, or known.
(Heisenberg)

All I know is that when I say "Hi, I'm longfun" I'm defining a separate, a human form, as a closed system (not an isolated system) which moves around in a universe (also a process, and potentially an isolated system, else there would be universes outside this one universe (and in that case we would need to redefine our local process (apparently an expanding universe) as part of a larger universe. Not?.(spin off)
when I say "Hi, I'm longfun" i'm not defining my mind, although my observation of mind might end when my flesh stops communicating with the environment around it and as human I might never know, what happens after.
I am a physical closed system and I am a process. I move within a process which I can't define to be open closed or isolated as I seem to lack information, but clearly the information is there in any direction I want to look.
Sure I'm limited by my sensors as well, but they relate to the closed system that I'm...within the larger process.
I find it logical to ask : Where can I find the biggest common divisor. If there is one biggest common divisor then this is really the biggest game you can play.

So I wonder? How will you control, determine or know your environment if you define your boundary for your specific practicality.
If you where religious I would say you just stopped your thinking.


But maybe you do know something I never though of so let's turn this around:
Where can you find the (un-relative) evidence that your observable environment is truly (I mean as an isolated system, not a closed one, a physical system without any external exchange. If it had any surroundings, it would not interact with it) separate from you?





Edited by longfun on 12/03/11 - 4:08 PM
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#25 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 12/03/11 - 4:21 PM:

longfun wrote:

Where can you find the (un-relative) evidence that your observable environment is truly (I mean as an isolated system, not a closed one, a physical system without any external exchange. If it had any surroundings, it would not interact with it) separate from you?






thumb up
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.