Solipsism.

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 153
#91
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
To be certain or proof of it is technically not possible. I know what i am observing to be real bc i can feel emotions and pain. I can tell others feel emotion and pain but i have no idea if it is pre-set to be that way. I don't think i / anyone can ever prove that. All we know is that we both seem to share this experience with what seems like the same emotions and feelings. Ultimately, my spiritual belief is sorta solipsistic in nature. That there is an infinite consciousness and everything is a manifestation of its thoughts. So technically, this would be one realization of its thoughts. However, that doesn't make this experience not real per se... it just makes it one of many experiences the observer, i, will have. It's sorta like a dream. Would you say a dream is not real? If so, that is what i think about this reality. 
#92
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Any of you guys seen Identical twins ?
I have them in my family, when i " observe " the freaks, something happens in me thinker that for some messed up reason makes me think real real strongly like you know, i find myself staring at em talking in me head about concensens. 
Everything is what it is.
ONLY FOR ME OF COURSE
But ummmmmmmmmmmmmm , one shouldn't entertain the um the thinking about it.
This makes  Keith the man on this subject.
And Sec Mur is 100% correct everytime " within reason " well i think so.  I'd except any answers 

What im trying to say is. 

I'm awarding one star to each of you. 
AWARD 2 Gold Stars to  ( Keithy ) for the, You should be getting trains going in ya thinking about this subject. 
AWARD 2 Gold stars to ( janesix ) for her nice line of questioning.  The whos the ( i ) thing. And the bammmmmmmmmmmmmm that was , so you only think that you are real now ?
Which by questioning it is alluding to them , if its this way, then its that way. 

I say.
This Question need not be entertained kids. Don't ask yourself it.
Seriously.
Stop it.
You may as well throw free will for and against in the mix in this same question, just for kicks.
#93
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Any one ever ran any tests on identical twins ?  Ha .
But that's what you need to do. 
Experiments , Experiments.
#94
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I'm just sad i didn't get any points. Why are you not giving me points? This is my world... i am suppose to get POINTS. What's up dude... if this is a solipsistic reality and mine, bc who else's would it be, then i say "hey!" 

8 days later

#95
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin

Firstly I do not claim to know if I exist or not. Secondly no I'm not really comfortable with that but I'm not sure what my comfort level has to do with what I believe.
More silly mind games.

As a carpenter, who has hit finger/thumbs on many occasions, and,

an auto mechanic who has ripped off skin off knucleses on many occasion, and,

an electrician who has been shocked a few times etc,

I can honestly, sincerely and with all mental and emotional faculities working for at least 45 years,

assure you, that, I and other humans like me, exist as an excellent 3D illusion expressed via 2D existence.





Topic's author
#96
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@mustardness
So you have perceptions and if these perceptions accurately reflect reality then we can make certain inferences from those perceptions. The real question is how do we know that our perceptions do accurately reflect reality. Now there is no point in behaving as though what we perceive is not real since it is the only "reality" we know but it is still beyond our epistemological limits to say with certainty that it is real.
#97
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
So you have perceptions and if these perceptions accurately reflect reality
Try this, get a sledge hammer and hit it your thumb with it at 100lls of pressure.

Let me know what you perceive.

If your missing part of your brain, then maybe you will feel nothing.

I was watching movie spinning man, and philospher teacher has chair under blackboard with sign that says, prove this chair exists.

The detective { Pierce Brosnan } says to professor, interesting.  Proferssor says go ahead take a crack at proving the chair exists and the detective says, 'what chair'?

Topic's author
#98
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@mustardness
If you think interaction with my perceived "reality" proves that it is real then you have missed the point.
#99
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
If you think interaction with my perceived "reality" proves that it is real then you have missed the point.
You obivously missed hitting your thumb with the sledge hammer. Try again and let me know the results. without screaming.

With that in mind try swinging out  over river on very high rope and let go. If you can do that without screaming then your better man than me.

Or at least have more practice at that.
Topic's author
#100
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@mustardness
I cannot really scream unless I am real. I accept that I am real as a convenience but I cannot be certain and by extension I cannot be certain that I can actually scream.

You do know what solipsism is right?
#101
Reece
Reece's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
0
1
2
Reece's avatar
Reece
0
1
2
-->
@secularmerlin
In this circumstance I trust my experience to be real over something I haven't had an experience with. 

What do you think about last thursdayism and other such philosophies? 

7 days later

Topic's author
#102
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Reece
What do you think about last thursdayism and other such philosophies?

Such philosophies cannot be discounted as if they were true our universe would look identical. It is still more convenient to behave as though everything I perceive is an accurate reflection of reality and in accepting that, even if only as a convenience, I must also accept certain propositions based on observation of the scientific method. One such proposition is the apparent extreme age of the observable universe.
#103
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
@RationalMadman
@drafterman
Well, if the universe is defined to be everything that exists, then it tautologically exists.
Well, you can be quite certain that there is no such thing as "nothing".

Upon analysis, "nothing" can only be "nowhere" and have "no size" and "no characteristics" it would axiomatically be undetectable by all.

It is the very definition of "non-existence".

So we can reason that because there is no such thing as "nothing", then whatever this this is, it certainly qualifies as "something".

#104
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, you can be quite certain that there is no such thing as "nothing".
No you not and any who place their ego to the side and follow rational, logical common sense pathways of thought know better.

Upon analysis, "nothing" can only be "nowhere"...
You really believe this comment? Eternally existent, macro-infinite non-occupied space exists outside of our eternally existent, finite occupied space Universe.

This is minimal rational, logical common sense for those whose ego does not diverge them from truth.


It is the very definition of "non-existence".
No it is not. play mind games with words is the ego taking priority of common sense.

Seemingly non-occupied space exists between Earth and moon.

True non-occupied space exists outside of our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.


So we can reason that because there is no such thing as "nothing", then whatever this this is, it certainly qualifies as "something".
Bru, no offense intended but it is obvious your ego allows you to not follow the most simple, rational logical common sense pathways of thought.

Let see, Ive posted these pathways for you at DDO and two or more threads here at DArt.



#105
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
The most annoying thing about the idea that our universe isn't real is that you can't really prove the universe is real without making the supposition that the universe is real. Now I enjoy my life and pursue happiness because I am happy whether the universe is real or not but I just can't shake the realisation that my experience may be completely illusory.

I am a soft solipsist, which is to say that I am willing to accept that my senses reflect reality provincially as a convenience since this tends to make my experience more pleasant than if I were to ignore my perceptions of it.

Can anyone find a way to be certain that anything exists besides your experience in and of itself?
This is an ontological problem.

Please provide your preferred definitions of "real" and "exists" as opposed to "illusory" and "non-existent".

#106
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@secularmerlin
How did you come to the conclusion that it is our universe and not yours if you can't verify your observations of colaboration?  
Topic's author
#107
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
These are qaulia not quanta. This thread is nothing more than an avenue to discuss the difference.
Topic's author
#108
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Plisken
I haven't I merely accept that you are "real" as a convenience so that we may have this discussion at all.

#109
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
These are qaulia not quanta. This thread is nothing more than an avenue to discuss the difference.

By your own standard, wouldn't you say that "real" and "exists" are quanta and "illusory" and "non-existent" are qualia?
Topic's author
#110
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I would say that it may be impossible to be objectively certain that anything is "real" or "exists" regardless of one's preferred definition.
#111
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I would say that it may be impossible to be objectively certain that anything is "real" or "exists" regardless of one's preferred definition.
I agree that it may be impossible to be objectively certain about anything in particular simply because humans are subjective beings that only experience a tiny, dynamic, fraction of what may be possible.

Raising the bar to "objectively certain" would seem to be an astronomical overreach.
Topic's author
#112
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
That is why I am a soft solipsist and a hard skeptic. 
#113
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
That is why I am a soft solipsist and a hard skeptic.
That would seem to be epistemologically prudent.

Topic's author
#114
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
So I don't have a definition for what is "real" although I accept my perceptions as "real" for convenience sake.
#115
Shed12
Shed12's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 72
0
0
4
Shed12's avatar
Shed12
0
0
4
So I don't have a definition for what is "real" although I accept my perceptions as "real" for convenience sake.
I don't understand this. Do you mean that you know what real means but can't provide a definition? Because regarding your perceptions as "real" but not having a definition for real can't be meaningful.

Topic's author
#116
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Shed12
The definition of real is what actually is. What is that? What actually Is? Unless we know that the definition is meaningless. What I have is a meaningless definition.
#117
Shed12
Shed12's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 72
0
0
4
Shed12's avatar
Shed12
0
0
4
-->
@secularmerlin
You sure? What do you mean by "is"?

Wouldn't your perceptions be what are? As in, if they were not, there would not be any perceptions to talk about.
#118
Shed12
Shed12's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 72
0
0
4
Shed12's avatar
Shed12
0
0
4
Maybe you're not a soft solipsist and you're only a very radical skeptic.

Topic's author
#119
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Shed12
May I ask you how your perceptions would seem different if they were completely illusory and your awareness was the only thing that was "real"?

Topic's author
#120
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Shed12
Maybe you're not a soft solipsist and you're only a very radical skeptic.

What is the difference?