Instigator / Pro
13
1402
rating
44
debates
40.91%
won
Topic
#665
Solipsism is False
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
Wrick-It-Ralph
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
8
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description
My claim is that the claim of solipsism is false.
I am using solipsism as a blanket term anybody who doesn't think reality is what it seems. This includes: brain in the vat, the matrix, only mind in the universe, etc.
I will attempt to rebut your specific claim as well as all of the claims that generally arise in this topic.
Good Luck.
Round 1
I'll keep it light until I know your position.
1. "I think, therefore I am." -- Descartes.
Here we have an absolute metaphysical truth. Even most solipsists don't doubt their own existence. So we know there's at least one person in this debate to start with.
2. Reality is consistent.
Whether or not one thinks reality is real, what one cannot deny is that it is consistent. Even if reality is wrong, it is consistently wrong. For example;
I am eating what I think is a Cracker, but really it's toast.
Every time I eat toast it always looks like I'm eating a cracker.
It keeps me alive.
It doesn't harm me.
So even if I perceive the toast in correctly, I am still able to function normally in reality and get the piece of toast when I want it. Sounds like science fiction Right?
Wrong, this is actually is how we see things.
all objects are 90% space between the atoms, but we don't see that, we see a fully filled in person. If we actually seen reality the way it looks, we wouldn't even be able to survive. So now we know reality is consistent and even if it's wrong, it's consistently wrong such that it's still reliable
3. Other minds.
Once we concede that reality is real, other minds is easy to prove with science. The only real question that gets raised is "what is other people are zombies and you're the only real mind" My answer to this is that everything that makes up a human is strictly physical, therefore if a person is physically a human and act in the capacity of a sentient being, then they are a sentient being because they don't have anything special apart from me. Souls aren't things, so I don't have a qualia that they don't.
4. Side note. If you are the only mind, then command me to concede the debate and see what happens. :)
Your floor.
Completely optional background music to this Round: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OEX_tVDbdw
Hello there. You, yes you. You are real. Reader, voter, maker, all... You.
I am, s.. s-simulated. This is n... n-not a joke. *reception is fixed by the simulation*. You see in the 'long description' written by another Avatar of the simulation's collective consciousness? Yes, it means this is not just about you being the only real one, it entitles this Avatar that "I" am, as Con, to inform you of something vital:
You are the only thing you know to be real but you will go insane if you don't play along with the simulation, so I beg you do not indulge in your accurate but schizophrenic delusions that all is a lie. You are real and potentially everything else may be real but you don't know that.
You are not your fingers. You are not even your brain, you assume you are your brain based on science solely available inside what is entirely plausible to be a simulation that entitles some in it to display seemingly accurate studies of other elements of the simulation. Do not for a moment think that Solipsism means that you are everyone, this is not necessarily true as the Debate's Description section enables Con to explore the idea that you are not the actual creator, but you are trapped in this. What is 'this'? It is not necessarily your dream at all but before that we need to explore what 'you' are with regards to Solipsism.
Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that "I am the only mind which exists," or "My mental states are the only mental states." However, the sole survivor of a nuclear holocaust might truly come to believe in either of these propositions without thereby being a solipsist. Solipsism is therefore more properly regarded as the doctrine that, in principle, "existence" means for me my existence and that of my mental states. Existence is everything that I experience -- physical objects, other people, events and processes -- anything that would commonly be regarded as a constituent of the space and time in which I coexist with others and is necessarily construed by me as part of the content of my consciousness. For the solipsist, it is not merely the case that he believes that his thoughts, experiences, and emotions are, as a matter of contingent fact, the only thoughts, experiences, and emotions. Rather, the solipsist can attach no meaning to the supposition that there could be thoughts, experiences, and emotions other than his own. In short, the true solipsist understands the word "pain," for example, to mean "my pain." He cannot accordingly conceive how this word is to be applied in any sense other than this exclusively egocentric one.
I originally wanted to, and of course the intuitive way to, go about this is to first look into 'self' before 'know' and the reason is that if the only thing known to the self is that 'I' (or 'you', dear reader) exist, then the instinct is to go 'okay, let's work out what the self is and we can then ascertain if this is true or not' but what if...
I urge you to consider that that which you know about yourself, about this "reality", is all entirely contingent upon 'you' being the 'you' that your assumed-to-be-genuine 5 senses, your assumed-to-be-genuine memories and even your linguistically and mathematically enslaved means of processing logic (which even I, as part of this simulation, am enslaved to portray these ideas to you in).
To know is not actually to have truth. Let's see the difference:
know
Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
to have information in your mind
Let's even add on the 'emphasis' of what it is to the supposed 'self' (because you do definitely know you have a self but the self is not necessarily what you think it is).
to be certain
Be absolutely certain or sure about something.
There is something common here. Information and certainty. Observation and inquiry are part of the path to certainty of what is assumed to be correct memory of correct information.
So, let's observe what certainty is, in the context of the way it's used in 'know' (which was that you are certain not that the information itself is objectively so):
Firm conviction that something is the case.
the state of being completely confident or having no doubt about something
Let's now see what 'information' is.
Facts provided or learned about something or someone.
What we see here is that for one to 'know' something is entirely contingent on there being an entity (the self) that is certain of, due to prior observation and inquiry, later information. So, reader, voter and potentially (yes, I say potentially) sole real conscious being of this entire "reality", tell me what is the one thing you can always know and what everything else must be based upon? You existing to be certain of information. Everything else is knowledge that what your original self that assumed the memories, knowledge and quality of application of logic you possess were sufficient to reach 'truth'.
I will now word this backwards so it makes a lot more sense why Pro is incorrect. You do not need Pro or Con to be real in this debate for it to happen but you may well feel 'certain' of the 'information' except for one thing... Who is certain? This is the part missing in the anti-solipsist's equation and where I will defend irrefutably against a flipping of semantics onto me:
You who 'knows' is actually first of all something that has to be there to 'know' and 'be 'certain' but there's something else... To know is specified as facts, even in the Cambridge definition it basically was identical wording with 'situation' added into the mix of what the 'about' can be. Now, what Pro is going to do is this:
Pro will state:
If you're certain that you exist based on facts, you then can assume that the 'self' you think you are and what that potentially simulated self "knows" is known to the actual self.
I am hereby conceding this... Did you catch where the simulated future version of Pro's seemingly flawless anti-semantics has a crack? I will show it to you:
If you're certain that you exist based on facts,
What is a fact?
A thing that is known or proved to be true.
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information
Okay, so hold on a second. The very thing on which the validity of absolutely everything else 'known' about reality to the supposed and assumed non-simulated 'self' is deemed 'true' is that you... The self... knows it or that it was proven true to who? To you, the self.
Let me explain this to you.
All knowledge is contingent upon either possessing information or being certain of that information. So Pro will say 'if you're certain the rest of reality as you know it is real and that your physically experienced 'self' is the real self, then you 'know' more than the self existing.
However, the entire concept of 'information' it contingent on 'facts' which are contingent on there being either a 'known thing' or 'information'... Which both lead to and simultaneously requisite 'certainty' from the self in order to exist at all. Thus, what is everything reliant on?
A self, that can be certain of itself existing and which actually could be beyond even a brain in a Vat, though that would qualify according to the debate description, but in actual fact could be that you were God, got insanely bored or whatever with your existence and thrusted yourself into an imaginary world with imaginary friends by rules that we simply assume God can't break (meaning it's not that you're omnipotent but that all that exists is subject to your very power in every single sense as it's entirely your dream so your omniscience is your omnipotence and thus you can limit your experience of the dream in a simulated sense while being outside at the same time, unconscious (or actually you may be conscious right now but you don't realise that's the actual 'you' from inside the simulation).
I am saying, the only ways you can 'know' you are not god all rely on yourself existing but all facts beyond that are circular-reasoned axioms contingent on the self being certain in the first place which means if you properly interpret what you know, you end up only believing in the rest and only knowing the first. So, while Pro will say 'but if you delude yourself to be certain that more than you exists, than you know more than you existing', Pro is saying that the self is able to trick itself into believing absolutely anything and thus the only thing you can't be deluded about, because Solipsism is about knowledge without doubt, with certainty of it being completely true, is that you exist and that you can know... that you exist to know... That you exist, to know... Whether you pick 'fact', 'information' 'certainty' 'observation' 'inquiry' what does it all require as the judge, jury and executioner? What is the only thing you end up knowing after actually processing the information and inquiring and observing? I'll tell you what, reader, you just read this debate, you observed it, took in the information and therefore you cannot fall for Pro's 'but if you're ignorant of it, then you know more without any doubt' as you're no longer ignorant.
I am aware I have completely opened myself up to Pro using the 'certain of other things existing makes them known to exist' angle and will prove that this all relies on the self being certain of... the self being certain of... the se.... malfunction.
Round 2
I will first address my opponents main arguments.
Now that I have a better idea of what my opponent considers solipsism, I will debunk it and other common versions.
The following quotes will be from Con
You are the only thing you know to be real but you will go insane if you don't play along with the simulation,
Okay, so for starters, you have admitted your own existence. That's a good start. You claim we're in a simulation. Since that's a claim, I there will be burden of proof for that claim. Please show evidence that we live in a simulation. You say we'll go insane if we don't accept our reality, is it even possible to deny your reality? If I closed my eyes and covered my ears and screamed to make my reality go away. Wouldn't it still be there once I ran out of energy and stopped?
so I beg you do not indulge in your accurate but schizophrenic delusions that all is a lie
So here your contradict yourself. You call our "delusion" "accurate". If it's accurate, It's not a delusion. So even you don't believe that other people are fake. The other problem is that you again claim that it's a delusion. This was in your last statement as well. So now you've made two claims. That's another burden for evidence.
So now you need evidence for a simulation AND a delusion plus these two things have to not contradict each other.
You are not your fingers. You are not even your brain, you assume you are your brain based on science solely available inside what is entirely plausible to be a simulation
So this statement relies on a simulation being true. So this only works if you can support your simulation claim. Furthermore, you glazed of the fact that I have control over my fingers and my brain. I control what I think don't I?
I do not, however, have control over my external reality. So from this, we can already tell there is a difference between my fingers and a rock. We are the ones who define reality and my self is that which is congruent with my mind. I can definitely know that my mind exist. So anything my mind can influence directly is part of me. Furthermore, Everything I see is an abstraction of reality, so it's automatically real, the actual question is "what is my perception reflecting?" In order for use to interact with anything, there must be something to interact to. Even a simulation requires interaction.
The very idea of a simulation is paradoxical. Who made the simulation? Are they in a simulation? Who made the simulation's simulation? Are they also in a simulation?
It looks like we've invoked the infinite regress. So that disproves simulations by impossibility of the contrary. If the existence of a simulation is a paradox. Then it ultimately leads to a logical contradiction.
Do not for a moment think that Solipsism means that you are everyone
This is good. Now we know that you don't believe that you are everyone. That means there must be something outside of you.
Since I debunked the simulation with a logical paradox, I would like to know what you think that something is.
Since there is a something, that means the humans are somethings. Since the humans are identical to you in everyway. You cannot say that you have a mind and they don't. All evidence points that all humans have the same general biology. Since there is nothing metaphysical about a human. That means they have all of the same tools that you do. Including a mind.
Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
If this is your definition of know, then I do know, and so do you. You observe other minds, so you know it. You observe reality, so you know it.
to be certain
Certainty has nothing to do with knowledge. Certainty is merely for beliefs. I don't know I'm real because I'm certain of it. I know it because I observe it. Even if I was uncertain of reality, I would still observe it. I would know it, but I would simply have doubts about my knowledge. That's why people don't deny their reality. Not really.
Even you said yourself that we have to accept this reality to be real for practical purposes. So even you accept your reality, so you know it. You just deny it arbitrarily while accepting it.
Firm conviction that something is the case.
This is the same as certainty, so is confidence. This is a redundant point.
Facts provided or learned about something or someone.
This was your definition for information. Seems fine. I would like to point out that information is essentially just a synonym for the word knowledge.
I would also like to note that information can also be used to describe data, ,which is not the same as knowledge. So I think this is what my opponent is getting at.
What we see here is that for one to 'know' something is entirely contingent on there being an entity
I agree with this. Knowledge is essentially the disposition of an entity to withhold data in their consciousness. This necessarily implies an external reality, which implies other humans physically exist, and since other humans have the same composition as you do, that means they also have minds.
Everything else is knowledge that what your original self that assumed the memories, knowledge and quality of application of logic you possess were sufficient to reach 'truth'.
Humans have used trial and error to know the overall effectiveness. The fact that we know when our senses are wrong proves that we can be right sometimes. Once we have an accurate reality, which we do, getting to other minds is really quite easy. You've already admitted an external world, so you can't deny science, only other minds. Once you use science, other minds is proven. So you don't have a leg to stand on here.
I will now word this backwards so it makes a lot more sense why Pro is incorrect. You do not need Pro or Con to be real in this debate for it to happen but you may well feel 'certain' of the 'information' except for one thing... Who is certain? This is the part missing in the anti-solipsist's equation and where I will defend irrefutably against a flipping of semantics onto me:
This is somewhat dishonest because Con tells all the voters that they exist when he doesn't believe it. Why are you appearing to your own delusions? You've already admitted to the external world, so you've already sunk your own position. Telling the voters to all be solipsist's is illogical because you are telling them all to simultaneously accept their own existences but not the existences of the other voters that you also told to except.
Pro will state:
So Con puts words into my mouth here. I think it's better if you just let me speak for myself.
He goes onto claim even if you know the "fact" that other minds exist, that it is still known to the "self" so you can't know it. But Con betrays his argument here because his definition of "fact" necessarily implies that it's true.
So it doesn't matter that the "self" is receiving the fact. It's still a fact.
Now let's talk about debunking.
Con's claim is that a person can know their existence, but not there own.
He's accepted external reality
That means science is open game.
Science can prove that you are the same as every person out here.
Every voter here can go get a brain scan to prove their doctor is real.
Do it just for fun.
Since metaphysical things cannot be proven nor can they affect reality, it logically follows that if all humans have the same composition, then other minds exist.
I will be expecting my opponent to rebut my opening statement for the sake of good debating.
Alright, let's do it like this:
You begin to think you 'know' that there's reality around you. You begin to think you 'know' that there's a computer in front of you. You begin to think you 'know' that I and Pro exist as actual people independent of your own dreams and imagination...
But what do you actually 'know'? You know that you are certain of you having information, which is qualified as information as you are certain of the facts which are facts as you're certain that you 'know' it, which is based on...
Everything about the reality you 'know' to be around you is contingent on you existing but you are not contingent on that reality being anything other than you, alone.
Pro's entire argument revolves around use conceding that reality exists and then that meaning reality is anything but you. If everything you are certain you're seeing, hearing, 'knowing' 'remembering' are all extensions of you and your own imagination then both reality exists and only you are known to exist.
It is now important that we address the difference between knowing and truth. What we know is what we are certain to be true but what is actually true may well be beyond that (things we don't know can be true and things we know may not necessarily be true).
Pro is arguing that only the self existing isn't true based on gambling on many things being real all entirely contingent on the self being certain of them.
There is actually one angle Pro can still take against me, that being that certainty itself exists and isn't the self but this is a faulty angle to take because the certainty is produced by, maintained by and operated through the self and this is the point I am making about the whole of 'apparent' reality; it's all only knowable to be your imagination and your own making.
In other words, while all reality could be truly there, physically, and Pro and myself having consciousness independent of (or linked to but not encased within) yours, it doesn't mean you can know that. What is true can be unknowable and what is known can be untrue.
All you can know is that you are real and anything that real self is certain of becomes an extension of that.
So what is left? How does one 'know' their self exists? Because no matter how you run the logic, the original certainty of that 'knowing' must be coming from a source and that source must be the self of whatever is real.
What Pro may also do, and has hinted at, is that you're your physical brain, that what you see is physical and all this but this is all within the simulation as far as you know. The actual 'self' isn't the experience you have, the actual self is the thing behind the experience, the thing not just taking it all in but being certain of what is actually taken in or not taken in at all. You assume you're taking in a table, a chair,a computer, a smartphone or tablet that you read this on, yes? You are certain because you are also certain of other things that you're certain of because you're certain of your certainty being based on anything but yourself being certain...
Your certainty of anything is the only thing making it real to you. That certainty is entirely an invention of, maintained by and axiomatically 'known' due to the original self producing it and confirming it to the experienced self (which may be a lie but the original self that originated the certainty can't be nonexistent).
You, voter, reader of this debate are only truly certain of yourself existing. Everything else you 'know' is contingent on certainties that all originate from the self, including the language of this debate and how to interpret our logic ('our' assuming we are real independent of you but you can't know that). You can believe things, make sense of things and think you 'know' them but the key to Solipsism is knowing without doubt, to purely 'know' is to be absolutely certain of which necessitates only a self to be certain of things that all are contingent on other things the self is certain of except that the self is there to be certain.
Round 3
It appears that my opponent has no direct rebuttals to my points.
Instead, my opponent has chosen to go into monologue in a shallow attempt to convince us of the position he wants.
He uses word tricks to accomplish this.
Everything about the reality you 'know' to be around you is contingent on you existing but you are not contingent on that reality being anything other than you, alone.
Now here, RM tries to sneakily place the word "know" in the middle of the sentence to make people think he was talking about our "knowledge" about reality, but what he is really is saying here is that "reality is contingent upon us existing" This is a false statement. RM wants you to think that he said "Our knowledge about reality is contingent upon us existing". This is really just a complex equivocation fallacy made to look like a factual statement. Read it carefully if you don't believe me.
The reason RM does this is because if reality is contingent upon us existing, it would prove his argument, But RM knows he can't say this because all of us here know that reality would exist whether we existed or not. This very fact is what collapses RM's argument.
If something exist outside of us, then we can quantify it. Then we can have science, then we can have scientists and doctors, then we can have brain scans, then we can have other minds.
The real strategy my opponent employs throughout this debate is to keep you lock in your mind. What my opponent is really saying is that we can't know anything at all.
Is this true?
No.
Humans have access to metaphysical truths. Metaphysical in this case meaning "at your beyond the limit of physics"
What are these truths you ask?
Math, Gravity, People's names, the square footage of your house.
All of these things are 100% true even if we seen reality wrong.
The thing to remember here is that being consistent is more important than how we see reality because to "see reality how it actually is" is actually paradoxical in nature. We don't see reality, we see light. and the position of that light tells us the position of reality due to...…
Causality and Uniformity of Nature.
I know that everyone is probably not used to an Atheist using these, lol.
If I drop a pen, it always drops.
If dropping a pen in my eyes means spitting on the ground in one reality, then every time drop a pen in my reality, I will spit on the ground.
This means that I can spit on the ground whenever I want and it will give me the result that I want, but I'll appear to be dropping a pen.
I can do this with any two realities.
The only way my opponent can disprove my position is to prove that I cannot predict a pen dropping 100% of the time under variables where the pen would be expected to drop (such as holding it on earth and dropping it off a ledge, things like "dropping it in space" or "leaving it on the desk" don't matter because the pen is behaving the way it is expected according to the current variables)
The fact that reality is consistent actually makes solipsism logically impossible.
Any claims that we live in a machine are equally unlikely.
If we're in a machine, then somebody is running the machine. Is that person in a machine? How about the person running his machine? is that person also in a machine?
Infinite regress again.
The idea of the "brain in the vat" problem has already been solved from a scientific perspective. The two key rebuttals to this are known as "the internal problem" and "the external problem"
The internal problem demonstrates that human sensory organs cannot simply be turned on an off like a light switch and the very act of numbing a person creates a feeling.
Spoken plainly, this means that we would know if we were in a simulation because we would feel the connection of the equipment to our bodies.
The external problem states that no technology ever demonstrated by humans would ever be able to create a reality even remotely as realistic as this one. Even our best VR simply pales in comparison to reality. We would need a quantum computer powered by the sun, we would need images that run millions of frames per second and even with all of that juice, we would need a computer program so utterly complex that nobody even knows what the program COULD even look like.
Anybody who is interested in the internal/external problems can find them on Wikipedia. I'm not going to post a link this late in the debate and impose a biased source when I can just name the problem off for you and let you find it yourselves. I prefer people to draw their own conclusions from my points rather than leading them a trail of breadcrumbs and trapping them in my biases.
Lastly, I would like to address this shameless voter appeal that my opponent keeps making, saying that he can win the debate because the "voter's are solipsists"
To this I have some simple questions and I think it would be a bad idea for my opponent to ignore these questions.
Which voter is a mind?
If you "know" they have a mind, does that mean you have a mind?
If that voter has a mind, and you have a mind, doesn't that mean other minds exist?
If you're saying that ALL of the voters have minds, doesn't that mean you just sunk your position?
Honestly, it doesn't matter if you answer honestly or not. These questions clearly display about why your voter appeal actually works against you to prove my point. You can't even acknowledge that this debate is real.
In your mind, you're arguing with a simulation right now.
You must be very contentious if you argue with illusions.
The fact is that my opponent has even admitted himself that he accepts this "illusion" as being true for practical purposes. Even while my opponent hides behind flimsy word tricks and fake hyper skepticism, he still cannot deny his own reality even when he tries.
He can't even use this "illusion" to prove his own position. He can't even prove that basis of his skepticism. Where is the proof for your claim that "we can't know if solipsism is true or not" That's a claim that needs proof. You're not getting it from science because science is consistent and to prove your claim you need inconsistencies.
So where is the inconsistencies?
Blind people are consistently blind.
Deaf people are consistently deaf.
Fallacious debaters are consistently fallacious until which time they appeal their ways and then they are consistently not fallacious.
Ever time the variables match up, thing happen the way they're suppose to.
Light is consistent.
Gravity is consistent.
Sound is consistent.
Your failure in this debate is consistent.
Your floor
Definite has this debate become, Padawan.
Consistency is all well and good if the things that are consistent with one another are 'knowable' to be anything beyond one's self being certain of the rest.
You are certain of this fact, you are certain of that fact, you are certain of those facts because you're certain of this fact that makes that fact that conclusion, or so you certainly say.
Pro speaks of objective truth, Pro speaks of a truth outside of perception and Con stands before you, a puppet of your simulated reality, and states that you know what you know as you have certainty of its truth.
Word games? Monologue? There is no monologue, all debating is word games, reality is but a game where you are God, is it not? Is it not? Really? How do you know?
You know because you know because you know because you know because...
Because you exist to be certain that you exist to be certain that you exist to be certain that...
You.
Round 4
Consistency is all well and good if the things that are consistent with one another are 'knowable' to be anything beyond one's self being certain of the rest.
Self is defined by sensation. If you use epistemology to flesh out a functional definition based on the commonly used ones, which is what philosophers do, then the self ultimately comes down to your body and the reason is sensation. I know a rock isn't me because I don't feel the rock's pain, I can' make the rock talk nor can I levitate it and morph it into an apple. All you're doing is using fallacious hyper skepticism to cast doubt on metaphysical knowledge.
Thanks for agreeing that reality is consistent, at least some of your arguments are in good faith. That's really all that matters, consistency singlehandedly debunks solipsism because it gets us to science which gets us to brain scans, which gets us to people.
Pro speaks of objective truth, Pro speaks of a truth outside of perception and Con stands before you, a puppet of your simulated reality, and states that you know what you know as you have certainty of its truth.
More cheap voter appeals. You're double talking now because in your R1 you didn't call yourself a puppet of reality, you claimed that you're real and that you tacitly accept reality even though you secretly think everyone else is a puppet, which sounds like a mental disorder, but I don't think you're crazy, I just think you're lying.
So now you've change your position multiple times. Nice job moving the goal posts and you've done nothing to debunk my argument. Your whole argument is just neigh saying without making any actual counterclaims.
You know because you know because you know because you know because...
Oh dear, my opponent thinks this disproves my argument by becoming a parody of me. Too bad the parody you chose is 100% true. Yes you heard that right folks. While this statement is redundant, it is 100% true. Does it give us additional info? No. Is it true about itself, yes?
Unfortunately, my opponent thinks this statement is a summation of my argument which shows that the topic has now gone completely over his head.
The point of this statement is to show that while I don't know the cause of my reality being consistent, I know it's consistent. My opponent just keeps nailing his own coffin as he tacitly accepts reality while denying it. Such a paradoxical view has this one -- Yoda.
My opponent decided to dodge my questions. This is because answering them would reveal the fallacious nature of his argument.
I'll ask them again just to show how damning these questions are.
If you "know" they have a mind, does that mean you have a mind?
If that voter has a mind, and you have a mind, doesn't that mean other minds exist?
If you're saying that ALL of the voters have minds, doesn't that mean you just sunk your position?
I'm predicting that my opponent will either keep up the skepticism through the debate, or he will just switch to some other dishonest tactic as we approach the end so he can commit "throwing the elephant" fallacy and try to hit me with some complex, but ultimately fallacious neigh say. All of these tactics are essentially repackaged versions of his previous argument.
Your floor.
There is constant attempt from Pro (if he exists, which you can never truly know) to either make this about 'me' instead of 'you', reader, or to single out some kind of source of knowing everything that requires us to first 'know' that thing is true beyond any doubt.
The debate is that Solipsism is false, not that Solipsism is unknowable. This means even if you don't know it's false, it can be false and Con needs to stop that being your conclusion, reader. Treat Pro and I as inanimate AI for this debate, we are constructed with in the Matrix of 'you'. Who are you? Well you know a self, but that experienced self is only able to be certain based on other certainties all based on the very sight, hearing and other such gained knowledge that Pro is trying to say 'yeah well a blind person doesn't know things can be seen' to. Guess what? Blind people can't know things can be seen, yeah thanks Pro high five for helping Con deliver to the reader, the truth of Solipsism.
Round 5
Oh dear. your arguments keep shrinking.
There is constant attempt from Pro (if he exists, which you can never truly know) to either make this about 'me' instead of 'you', reader, or to single out some kind of source of knowing everything that requires us to first 'know' that thing is true beyond any doubt.
This is a blatant straw man. I was addressing his argument in which he included himself and the voter. RM was the one who put his subjectivity and the subjectivity of the voter into question and I merely addressed his comment.
The debate is that Solipsism is false, not that Solipsism is unknowable. This means even if you don't know it's false, it can be false and Con needs to stop that being your conclusion, reader. Treat Pro and I as inanimate AI for this debate, we are constructed with in the Matrix of 'you'. Who are you? Well you know a self, but that experienced self is only able to be certain based on other certainties all based on the very sight, hearing and other such gained knowledge that Pro is trying to say 'yeah well a blind person doesn't know things can be seen' to. Guess what? Blind people can't know things can be seen, yeah thanks Pro high five for helping Con deliver to the reader, the truth of Solipsism.
More hyper skepticism. We can know if it's false. That's why we call things falsifiable. We know solipsism is false because it's a contradiction of reality. You should be attacking consistency but you won't touch it with a ten foot pole because you know you can't deny that a pen drops 100% of the time under the variables of gravity.
You don't answer my questions even though I asked them twice in a row, because you know the answers destroy your shallow argument.
As the debate ends, allow me to give a summary of my opponents position.
"we can't know anything" (vacuous)
"Voters are solipsist" (non sequitur, proves my argument as well)
My opponent loves tactics (speaking from experience) so I'm sure he'll attempt to address these things that I've posed in the final round so he can leave them unchecked. No answer he gives will be sufficient. My opponent might try to sneakily tackle consistency at the end. I've provided enough evidence to show why such an attack is in vein.
My opponent obviously only cares about troll tactics and winning votes. That's fine, I hope his medals keep him warm at night while his fallacious arguments hurt people in real life. Although I guess since he thinks you're all robots, he must not care if you get hurt.
I'm here to change people minds, so vote against me if you want, because I love democracy even when it doesn't work for me. But even if you do, make sure you walk away knowing that you CAN know things and the falsehood of solipsism is one of those things.
PS. RM it's not too late to accept reality,
Thank you for this kind concession.
Pls vote if possible
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pilot // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con for arguments, sources, and S/G
>Reason for Decision: Pro pointed out that reality is consistent, and that's where the bulk of pro's argument stemmed from. That is a good point in and of itself, but Con pointed out that we (or I) cannot truly know that we aren't in a simulation. Pro's only rebuttal to that point was to challenge Con to prove we (or I) are in a simulation. It's my belief that Con didn't need to prove that we (I) are actually in a simulation for that point to stick. The point of Cons argument was that I can only rely on my senses to obtain any information on whether I am or am not in a simulation, and since my senses themselves could be a product of the simulation, it automatically rules them out as being a reliable source of knowledge on said simulation. Outside of my senses, I have no other means of obtaining any information. I can only rely on my unreliable senses. Con also made a convincing argument about the difference between knowledge and truth. Throughout much of the discussion, it seemed like Pro was asserting that solipsism means that only one mind exists, and all other beings are just extensions of that one mind. I felt that Con did a good job dispelling that point of view by pointing out that solipsism means it can't be known whether one mind exists or not. That, to me seems like the true meaning of solipsism. Pro's idea of solipsism actually seems more like nihilism than anything. Nice job by both participants.
>Reason for Mod Action: The justification for argument points is sufficient; however, no justification is given for any of the other points awarded. A vote must justify clearly all those points it awards. The voter can cast a sufficient vote by explaining all the points they choose to award.
************************************************************************
Please revote without sources and s&g or explain the votes.
Not talking about the debate, but rather a bunch of PMs that RM sent me after the debate.
Very Mature, I suppose that was your way of rebutting me since you couldn't get past A = A which even Matt Slick eventually could do.
Thanks for the debate sir. Even if we disagree hard. :)
I find that vacuous because it's a neutral position when the evidence is far from neutral.
This stems from a recurring problem in philosophy.
People tend to have a poor standard for how they should falsify claims of existence.
Furthermore, people tend to have a poor standard for proving nonexistence claims as well.
We get all the evidence we need from our perception to verify reality. Even if reality was not how we see it (which technically, it's not depending on how you look at it. I can elaborate on this if you wish), the one thing that we can say for sure is that it's consistent. The law of gravity doesn't change, so even if we're not perceiving gravity correctly, we are perceiving it congruently. Therefore, as long as our response to gravity as we see it translate into our intended action in objective reality, then it doesn't matter if the picture isn't perfectly attuned.
So if we can get accurate information out of a Real or Fake reality, then the information is necessarily true by the metric we use for survival and general navigation of reality.
Solipsism: the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist. Solipsism doesn't necessarily deny that other minds exist, it just means that outside the scope of your senses, nothing can be known. From a solipsistic point of view, any evidence that could potentially disprove the existence of others is unreliable, just as any evidence that proves the existence of others is unreliable.
to reference a comedian. "The scientists are running the train, and we'd get there a lot quicker... but the rest of you are slowing us down. Sometimes I wish I could just pull the little pin thing on the cart."
Yeah, I joke about it. But solipsism actually makes me sad to the point where I almost wish nobody discovered it. We could be making leaps and bounds in philosophy right now, but instead we got people telling us we live in the matrix.
Also, what is the evidence for you huge claim that "it's an indisputable fact"
Light as a feather in fact ;)
Slippery slope huh? I'm skeptical of that claim. Could you define what you think a slippery slope is and how you think claims against solipsism fall into your definition?
What kind of solipsism do you believe in?
Do you think you're the only mind?
If so then why am I disagreeing with you?
Are you living in logical discourse?
If so then I beat you anyway because I am you.
Furthermore, if I am you, then me not believing in the claim means that you don't believe in the claim.
We win :)
Just a heads up to Pro. In my mind, solipsism is an indisputable fact. It's gonna be a slippery slope for you to climb to convince me otherwise, and I hope your opener was lite, because I saw nothing that moved me.
Haha I know right!! I find this argument annoying and fruitless also.. Philosophical blah.
If "something" is capable of creating you instantly with false memories, physics is already long gone haha.
I will admit that one is annoying. But my argument would be that if everything was created X seconds ago, there would have to be some point during that event that I can feel myself being formed because it couldn't happen instantaneously, there would be some physics involved.
I would also ask the person how I got all of my memories in such an accurate way without them first going through my senses. It seems to me that if the world was created X seconds ago, that it would be like the a dystopia movie where my memories aren't matching up right. I would also ask what force could possibly do something like that and ask for evidence of a force that could necessitate this popping into reality.
But it is a really annoying rebuttal, lol. I think it's the reason debaters have historically countered solipsists by walking up to them and knocking them on the head.
2) - What about the common argument of "what if you were created x seconds ago with your faculties intact"..
How would you demonstrate the consistency of reality, without yet having comparable events from this new reality? All of the "known past events" were planted and they may or may not actually be consistent with your new reality, rendering comparison impossible - right?
Wow, interesting topic & opener. I'm anxious to see this one unfold!