Solipsism

Author: Savant
Philosophy
Solipsism

Posts

Total: 29
Topic's author
#1
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
Solipsism generally holds that only the self can be known to exist. But just because something is possible does not mean it is likely. If solipsism is false, it makes sense that the universe seems to have consistent laws and that past experiences are consistent with future experiences. Dreams, in contrast, barely make any sense and rarely remain consistent. So if humans were brains in a vat, I think the probability of our experiences being consistent with an outward reality would be very low.

I have the same doubts about the zombie theory. If your brain is generating consciousness, it seems unlikely that it would be the only brain to do so. It also seems unlikely that a non-conscious brain would lie and say that it was conscious, or be somehow programmed to act outwardly like a conscious mind. Even if this is a non-physicalist correlating effect, whatever external cause is putting minds into brains probably wouldn't stop with one individual.

You might be on the Truman Show, or the victim of some elaborate government conspiracy, but neither of those things is very likely. I'm not sure how solipsism is more significant than any other theory that is technically possible but very unlikely.
#2
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,590
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Savant

      Well stated.
#3
TheApprentice
TheApprentice's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 32
0
0
6
TheApprentice's avatar
TheApprentice
0
0
6
-->
@Savant
If I'm understanding your point right (solipsism is already pretty confusing), you're trying to say that solipsism is unlikely because our brains would likely not be able to be consistent with reality and would therefore poke a hole in the theory that your brain is the end-all-be-all, because it would be wrong? And if the brain is wrong, there must be something beyond it that is right, disproving the theory that the brain is the only real thing?
While I'm unfamiliar with the zombie theory, I've always thought of solipsism as this situation where your brain is the only thing in existence, and everything you're introduced to is merely a creation of your own thoughts. So, basically, the laws of reality are only things my brain has created, and I'm subject to them because my brain gives them power.
#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Savant
@TheApprentice
Solipsism is a philosophical concept.

Within that context it is neither likely nor unlikely nor confusing as such.

It is simply what it is.


Whether or not one agrees with the concept is a separate contention relative to the wider context of the self as a part of everything or something.


I would simply suggest that it is reasonable to conclude that we are actually aware of an external reality.

Working on the assumption that sensory perception, signal conversion and data storage and assessment is an accurate process.

Which is not to say that everything that we do perceive, convert and assess and store can be utilised as anything other than an internally projected simulation of an externality.

Nonetheless, do or don't we manipulate externality and then perceive a validatable result via sensory processing?

I would therefore also suggest that acquired knowledge is proof, and that agreement is  consolidatory rather than coincidental.




#5
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,599
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
universe seems to have consistent laws
You did not prove that those consistent laws exist. We cant just assume that something we see is real because we see it, since that is circular reasoning. In the same way, our senses cannot be used to confirm our senses. I cannot say "I see that I see", and even if I could, then I would need to see that "I see that I see". It goes to infinity, really.
Topic's author
#6
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Best.Korea
@TheApprentice
That's not quite what I'm saying. If reality is fake (generated by our brains), I would expect the "reality" we observe to be inconsistent, have a lack of physical rules, and be similar to how dreams are in general. Dreams don't usually make sense. The chances of a fake reality being 100% consistent with the concept of an external world seem very low.
#7
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,599
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Savant
If reality is fake (generated by our brains), I would expect the "reality" we observe to be inconsistent
First you would need to prove that consistency means that something is not fake or that something is less likely to be fake. Dreams being "inconsistent and fake" does not mean that inconsistent means fake. In the same way, apple being green and red does not mean that green means red. What is exactly inconsistent about dreams? If it is because they change, then reality is inconsistent too since reality changes as reality was not observed before our life but now it is observed.
Further, fake does not equal to inconsistent. Something can be fake and consistent with itself. Our brains are capable of knowing both consistency and inconsistency. To say otherwise would mean to say our brains cannot know consistency and therefore cannot know if reality is consistent. It might as well be the case that reality is fake but designed by a higher being to seem consistent to our senses. Our senses which we use to confirm consistency are themselves inconsistent since they cannot confirm themselves. Therefore, we cannot confirm that reality is consistent since our senses are not consistent in sensing and cannot sense themselves.
Reality is only consistent if we wrongly assume that our senses are consistent, and even then it is only consistent during our life, not before. Therefore, it is not consistent before our life, since we did not observe it before our life began. We cannot know if reality is consistent or if it exists at all or if consistency equals to "not fake".
If something is real because it is consistent, then God is real because he is consistent. Spirits are real because they are consistent. Other realities are real simply because they are consistent.
If something is fake because it is inconsistent, then our senses are fake because they are inconsistent. They are inconsistent because they cannot sense themselves and cannot sense everything that exists. Therefore, our reality is fake too since reality is only learned about throught fake senses.
Further, even if reality was consistent, it could be just our brain or higher being producing something consistent. To say that it is unlikely is nothing but an assumption, since our brains are capable of producing and knowing both consistency and inconsistency. Higher beings would also be capable of that. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that consistent means not fake.

#8
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Savant
Solipsism generally holds that only the self can be known to exist. But just because something is possible does not mean it is likely. If solipsism is false, it makes sense that the universe seems to have consistent laws and that past experiences are consistent with future experiences. Dreams, in contrast, barely make any sense and rarely remain consistent. So if humans were brains in a vat, I think the probability of our experiences being consistent with an outward reality would be very low.
Arguments for solipsism do not merely posit the possibility of the thesis to equate such change to some truth value  - usually, a defence would involve a rebuttal of physicalism and dualism, intending to establish that the mind is all that we know and therefore ought to believe in. The case of dreams too is an insufficient reductio. From a scientific perspective, the majority of people are not aware of their dreams, often equating it with reality. Philosophically too, the case is uncompelling - we delineate between dreams and "reality" by virtue of a comparison in hindsight. So were we too be in a dream state and never awoken, that we have not experienced the reality outside of "reality" renders it impossible for some judgement to be made about how real our experiences are. 
Topic's author
#9
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Bones
That's usually because in dreams you never bother to consider whether you are dreaming. I actually had a weird dream once where everyone was trying to convince me I wasn't dreaming, but I figured out some inconsistencies and woke up. If you thought hard enough while inside a dream, I think you could figure out that the "reality" generated by your brain was fake. When I apply that same level of reasoning to reality, I don't see the same kinds of inconsistencies.
#10
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Savant
Again the brain of the cat scenario isn’t null in the grounds of you thinking you could just wake up simply because you have never “woken up” and thus have no unit of measurement to judge waking from sleeping. 
Topic's author
#11
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Bones
My standard is reality having consistent rules - that's a rather unlikely coincidence if reality is fake, given all the alternate possibilities. That doesn't require me to distinguish waking from sleeping.
#12
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Savant
What you think is a consistent reality may be a misled supposition, just as how most individuals go about in their dreams without realising inconsistencies. What you think may be consistent may be the product of illusions.

Topic's author
#13
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Bones
I grant that would be true most of the time, when you're not thinking too hard. But if I think about what I did yesterday, and the day before that, etc. it would be easy to notice inconsistencies. Even if someone lived permanently in a dream state, they would be able to figure it out with good enough skills of deduction.

It's a bit like saying that many people are bad at math. It's true, but it doesn't mean that we can't rely on mathematical proofs.
#14
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
I'm totally on board with all that. 
Im a " brain in a jar " type of guy. 


Thennnnnnnnnnnnnnnn i think about  "Twins"
Twins ruin alot of my crazy thought.
That being the fact that a female can give birth to twins. 

Twins to me , makes life pretty much exactly  how "we" pecive it. 
We being the majority. 
Thus  making it boring. 
I don't think ( twins ) should rule heaps of shit out. 
Its just , ummmmm .  It does to me. 
 

 Thinking about what you did yesterday is a conscious hallucination. 
#15
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Thinking about what you did yesterday is a conscious hallucination.
Absolutely Deb.

Hmmmmmmm.

Had to quickly look up hallucination.

So, absolutely Deb.

Though "hallucination" has a tendency to come with negative connotations.


So, thinking about what you did yesterday is consciously revisiting and reconstructing recently acquired data....Remembering

Though I think that evidence would suggest that the comparative  accuracy of remembered data is questionable.


A bit like where you have  60 seconds to look a a picture containing 20 different items.

Picture is removed.

And then you have 60 seconds to remember as many items as you can.


Did you get all 20 Deb?


#16
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
It took me. 
8 mins plus , it took me to spell the word conscious. 
And about 5 mins to spell hallucination.


I suppose remembering how to spell is a bit like what you said , just " remembering "

No but i heard someone say that once zed,  and it seemed to fit nice. 
That being remembering what ya did yesterday thing. 

And Out of 20 i think i could remember 10 maybe 12 Random things.


#17
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Savant
Your notion of “thinking too hard” can only be grounded if there is some point of reference - if you’re entire life was within a dream you would never even be disposed to think hard enough to conceive of a scenario where you are a brain in a vat. If you lived your entire life in a coma where your only experience were dreams , you would never be able to conceive of a world outside. To say otherwise is simply silly - if all you have experienced is a dream you would never suspect a thing. 
#18
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Bones
All that we consciously experience is the sensory perception of an external stimulus. the conversion of light and sound etc, into electro-chemical data.

As such we SUSPECT everything.

A Dream is an internal recreation and rearrangement of previously acquired information, relative to a sleep state and somewhat different to a conscious awake state.
#19
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
I've  seen a chick i know naked in a dream once. 
What i want to know isssssss. 
Do you think that what i ummmm " seen " really was what her naked body looked like ? 

Every 3rd dream i remember having zed is running away from a person with a gun. 
I don't mind these dreams as I've never been  to shaken by " nightmares " , i quite like them.  
Do you get "scared" from nightmares big fella? 

One day they will do studies into dreams , im sure of it. 

Topic's author
#20
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Bones
if all you have experienced is a dream you would never suspect a thing
That's where I disagree. If the concept of solipsism was brought up to someone in a dream, and they considered that the outside world was inconsistent and illogical, then it makes a lot of sense. Not everyone will come to that conclusion, but the mode of deduction is valid. I'm not referring to dreams being inconsistent with reality, but to the dream world being internally inconsistent.
#21
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Imagine if someone didn't know how to pronounce the word ,  Solipsism.   
How stupid would they be right ? 

No but .  If someone asked you how to pronounce Solipsism , what would you say ? 

They could look in the dictionary for how to sound it out hey ?   but they think that would ruin the fun of taking time  finding out. 

The word Solipsism looks real stupid like hey ? 
Said my mate. 


Can you ....
Give me one word with  ( ism )   on the end thats not bad. 
Ya time starts NOW.... 

I know 3.





Topic's author
#22
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
If someone asked you how to pronounce Solipsism
I would repeat the way they pronounced it.
#23
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@Savant
Doh. 

Very well played. 


Good game.
Good game.   

#24
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I like dreams.

Sleep reality.

Another simulated existence.
#25
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
I reckon I am as smart as you are when we are booth asleep Zed.  
Yep. 
When we are awake its opposite and i get that but. 
Thats but. 
When asleep Zed my "intellect" or whatever it is, is as ummmm, good  Or as smart as yours.
You know what i mean. 
Same same. 

So Fucking say it. 
Tell me im smart like you when asleep.  

Well im not soli , i mean silly 
Solim piss / solipsism. 
Horrible word hey ? 




Oh And zed. 
You've now only  One hour left to give me a non negative  ( ism )  word.
Good luck with that. 

Good day Sir. 
#26
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Damn.

I was painting my windows and missed the deadline.

Fact is, you can put ism after any word.

Sooooooooo.

Better late than never.

Noism

F**k off is a noism.

As opposed to a yesism.

Cheers Bruce is a yesism.


And these delusions of grandeur you get whilst asleep.

When there's a dream sharing app I'll come and join in.
#27
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
Imagine how smart you'd have to be to sleep walk ?    ( sleep walking is smarter then sleeping. ) 
Thats getting close to jedi like. 
Orrrrrrr
Imagine  Possessing the ability to  blackout when you kill someone. 
And the next thing ya know you wake up covered in blood. 
That would be a handy thing to have.  

Brains in jars.
The lot of us.  

 A Mayonnaise jar you are zed. 
Im a vegemite jar.

Hey when i hear crime shows say . 
The door was left ajar. What do you reckon i think of zed. ?

Correct. 
So the doors absolutely missing and there is a jar in its place.  
#28
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Q. When is a door not a door.

A. When it's a jar.


Easier than saying open a little bit


Yep, big catering sized mayo jar.

Vegemite is usually in those funny little brown jars over here.

38 days later

#29
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
I think it's simply a matter of understanding how determinism works. Though, it could be something else.