If I can know for certainty that I think, then that necessarily means that I am thinking in time, since I am having the thought now. The act of thinking necessarily implies an external world where time exists within which I may have a thought. Therefore, I can know with the same certainty that I think, that there is an external world to my thought that at least has time.
Solving Solipsism
Posts
Total:
52
-->
@Sum1hugme
Solipsism is self defeating anyway.
Because to transfer such data relies upon experiences that exceed the self.
-->
@Sum1hugme
There is no solution for soft solipsism. We cannot verify the "realness" of reality without presuming that it is. It really doesn't matter however because even if this is all illusory we can still learn the rules and optimize our experience.
A door, when closed is not; it is a wall. When open, it is not, either. It is an opening in the wall, thus, the empty space is not a door. That's solipsism.
-->
@Sum1hugme
If I can know for certainty that I think, then that necessarily means that I am thinking in time, since I am having the thought now. The act of thinking necessarily implies an external world where time exists within which I may have a thought.
No. You haven't substantiated that time is outside of your thoughts. How is your perception of time any less constructed than your awareness of your conception?
-->
@Athias
Because I'm having the thought in time. Having a thought necessitates the time within which to have it. Which means that there is an external world where time exists; at least the now moment within which I'm having this thought exists.
-->
@Sum1hugme
Because I'm having the thought in time. Having a thought necessitates the time within which to have it. Which means that there is an external world where time exists; at least the now moment within which I'm having this thought exists.
Yes, because of your perception of time. You think that how experience time is not informed by your conceptions?
-->
@Athias
It seems to me that a necessary precondition of thought is time within which to have that thought. It can't be the other way around.
-->
@Sum1hugme
It seems to me that a necessary precondition of thought is time within which to have that thought. It can't be the other way around.
First, "seem" is never an argument. Second, it is necessary for your argument to extend its conclusion. Hence my stating:
You haven't substantiated that time is outside of your thoughts.
You're applying circular reasoning. Your premise is the same as your conclusion.
-->
@Sum1hugme
If I can know for certainty that I think, then that necessarily means that I am thinking in time, since I am having the thought now. The act of thinking necessarily implies an external world where time exists within which I may have a thought. Therefore, I can know with the same certainty that I think, that there is an external world to my thought that at least has time.
Time is not necessarily "external".
Consider the possibility that there are multiple "layers" of "thinking".
Time might merely be the "top" "layer".
-->
@Athias
You're applying circular reasoning. Your premise is the same as your conclusion.
Well stated.
-->
@Sum1hugme
It seems to me that a necessary precondition of thought is time within which to have that thought. It can't be the other way around.
A "necessary precondition" is not the same as "external".
-->
@Athias
No. You haven't substantiated that time is outside of your thoughts. How is your perception of time any less constructed than your awareness of your conception?
Well stated.
-->
@fauxlaw
A door, when closed is not; it is a wall. When open, it is not, either. It is an opening in the wall, thus, the empty space is not a door. That's solipsism.
Are you suggesting that a "movable wall" and or an "intermittent opening in a wall" are not "valid concepts"?
-->
@secularmerlin
There is no "solution" for soft solipsism. We cannot verify the "realness" of reality without presuming that it is. It really doesn't matter however because even if this is all illusory we can still learn the rules and optimize our experience.
Well stated.
-->
@zedvictor4
Solipsism is self defeating anyway.
Please explain.
Because to transfer such data relies upon experiences that exceed the self.
Data can only be transferred WITHIN a system.
Are you perhaps familiar with Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems? [LINK]
-->
@Sum1hugme
Epistemology is what the boards of our house are made of. What is outside our house is noumenon.
-->
@3RU7AL
Data can only be transferred WITHIN a system.
Well stated.
-->
@3RU7AL
Not at all. I'm suggesting that when a door is closed, it's a wall. When a door is open, there is no visible substance; it's an empty space. Thus, we make use of what is not to pass through to what is, another space that is not empty.
-->
@fauxlaw
In this specific metaphor are you comparing (as opposed to contrasting) the concept of "solipsism" to the concept of "door"?
-->
@3RU7AL
Now you're getting it. Nothing is nothing, and nothing will be nothing.
The flaw in the belief that nothing results in something, as in, the beginning of the universe is that there is no beginning of that expanse. Otherwise, there would be no eternity, which is not merely time proceeding forever into the future without it having an infinite past, as well, i.e., no Big Bang. Maybe a bang to start this galaxy, but this galaxy, our Milky Way, is not synonymous with the universe at large. New stars, and even new galaxies, are being formed all the time, aways have, and always will.
-->
@3RU7AL
Data can only be transferred within a system.
This is non-specific.
What do you mean exactly?
The universe is a system.
So if one cannot ever be independent of a system, then solipsism is solved.
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
@zedvictor4
@Athias
@fauxlaw
The exact opposite:
Identity is an emergent property of evolution.
What do you guys think? Is there any improvements to make if possible?
Sorry Sum1hugme, I could only put in 5 recipients, but I know you’ll get a notification anyway.
-->
@Reece101
Identity is an emergent property of evolution.
How so?
-->
@Reece101
Identity is an emergent property of evolution.
I believe the exact opposite; that identity is eternal.
-->
@fauxlaw
Who cares if the cosmos is "eternal" or "temporary"?
Please explain how this relates to "solipsism".
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain how this relates to "solipsism".
Because, typically, the solipsist, having illusions of his own, forgets that every other person on Earth jaded by solipsism also thinks everyone else is an illusion, and it does not take long for the delusional solipsists to go after God, the creation, the universe, etc, and declare that all of it is illusion, as well. Before long, they, themselves, will wink out of existence. Maybe then, we can get back to serious scientific/philosophic discussion.
-->
@Athias
@fauxlaw
Athias:
How so?
To be clear I mean the blueprint for identity is an emergent property of evolution.
It’s what helps us navigate our environment as individuals.
And yes, this includes solipsism as a result. I’m not saying it’s perfect.
Fauxlaw:
I believe the exact opposite; that identity is eternal.
Oh right, God.
-->
@Reece101
I was talking about everyone, individually, including God. Not only him, but his God. And so on.
-->
@Reece101
To be clear I mean the blueprint for identity is an emergent property of evolution.It’s what helps us navigate our environment as individuals.And yes, this includes solipsism as a result. I’m not saying it’s perfect.
How is the blueprint for identity an emergent property of evolution? What is the blueprint for identity?