|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
 Posted - 03/23/2012 : 05:36:32 [Permalink]
|
| ...Sorry everyone, my brain plug was loose, what did I not miss?;) |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2012 : 06:48:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Convinced
Then truth is ultimately unknowable and this discussion is irrelevant. |
Yes, you first need a justification for rejecting solipsism.
|
After googling solipsism I understand it to be that I can only be sure that my own mind exists but not anyone else or anything else. I think the main reason to reject solipsism is that there is no compelling reason to believe it. I see no evidence that it is true but more evidence that my mind is not unique. Here are some other thoughts:
- Why would I create a made up existence for myself that has physical and emotional pain?
- Why would I create an existence for myself where I have to do things that I would rather not do such as laundry, work, dishes, etc?
- My mind would have to be exceedingly more powerful than I believe it to be to create such a complex reality for myself that does not exist.
- Can one part of a mind create a universe so complex that another part of the mind cannot fully understand? For example I do not think I am capable of fully understanding the Big Bang Theory, Quantum Mechanics and the last 3 weeks of my differential equations class.
- Why would I need to learn anything?
-Why am I surprised by some events?
Any of the above thoughts does not disprove solipsism since there are rebuttles to each but it creates to me a lot of doubt that it is true.
Also, what do I have to gain to believe it? I would rather live in my present reality whether it is real or not than know that my own mind is the only thing that exists. If solipsism is true then my present reality is the real reality anyway. So in the end I choose not to believe it and go on from there.
I hope some of that made sense. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2012 : 06:51:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Convinced
I agree for some things but most things we can know the absolute truth. Such as it is absolutly true I registered on SFN today.
|
That could possibly be false, from Halfmooner's point of view since today may already be friday for him.
|
I disagree, the way I see it is that my statement is true for him as well since I was the one making the statement and not Halfmooner. The day I registered at SFN is the same day for Halfmooner and myself whether he is a day ahead or not. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2012 : 06:58:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by Convinced
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I submit that nothing is true if it cannot be verified by outside observation or experiment. |
Can this statement of truth can be verified by outside observation or experiment?
|
And existentialism raises it's ugly head because someone wants to hold forth religion as true and provable.
|
I don't know much about existentialism but I will google it.
I think religion is provable, go look in a Catholic church during mass and you can observe religion being practiced for example. Did you mean God instead of religion?
|
That is ritual, not religion.
Religion is a set of teachings that assumes a God belief. The rituals add to the religion a ceremonial aspect but are unnecessary to religion in general. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2012 : 07:10:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Convinced
Then truth is ultimately unknowable and this discussion is irrelevant. |
Yes, you first need a justification for rejecting solipsism.
|
After googling solipsism I understand it to be that I can only be sure that my own mind exists but not anyone else or anything else. I think the main reason to reject solipsism is that there is no compelling reason to believe it. I see no evidence that it is true but more evidence that my mind is not unique. Here are some other thoughts:
- Why would I create a made up existence for myself that has physical and emotional pain?
|
Because you are a masochist.
- Why would I create an existence for myself where I have to do things that I would rather not do such as laundry, work, dishes, etc?
|
Because you feel the need to be guilty or be punished for. (See sado-masochism)
- My mind would have to be exceedingly more powerful than I believe it to be to create such a complex reality for myself that does not exist.
|
Ever read the books of Tolkien or Heinlein? Those individuals weave great tapistries of farsical lands. Since all of this is occurring within your head (such as fevered dreams), the mind need not physically create anything. It merely has to fire the appropriate neurons to simulate interaction with the environment.
- Can one part of a mind create a universe so complex that another part of the mind cannot fully understand? For example I do not think I am capable of fully understanding the Big Bang Theory, Quantum Mechanics and the last 3 weeks of my differential equations class.
|
Why is it complex? Why not merely showing unrelated phenomenon, offering no explainations, and offering scientific goobletygook/word salad as a justification.
- Why would I need to learn anything?
|
Why is the subconscious hidden from us?
-Why am I surprised by some events?
|
See above.
Any of the above thoughts does not disprove solipsism since there are rebuttles to each but it creates to me a lot of doubt that it is true.
Also, what do I have to gain to believe it? I would rather live in my present reality whether it is real or not than know that my own mind is the only thing that exists. If solipsism is true then my present reality is the real reality anyway. So in the end I choose not to believe it and go on from there.
I hope some of that made sense.
|
The old "I reject your reality and substitute my own" ploy.
Well done Doctor. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2012 : 08:10:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Any of the above thoughts does not disprove solipsism since there are rebuttles to each but it creates to me a lot of doubt that it is true. |
Unfortunately, because solipsism ensures that anything outside the self cannot be "self-evident," solipsism is necessarily the default position. And of course you cannot get out of your own mind to get some independent verification that any allegedly external phenomena are real. You're stuck in the solipsistic pit until you can come up with some port of philosophical justification for climbing out of it.| Also, what do I have to gain to believe it? |
I don't think reality gives a hoot whether you gain or lose by believing in any particular proposition.| I would rather live in my present reality whether it is real or not than know that my own mind is the only thing that exists. |
Well, there are other alternatives, which still need justification for rejection. Like that you're nothing more than a sophisticated computer program executing as a part of a virtual universe created by beings far more intelligent than us. The same problems attend that scenario that attend classical solipsism. But would you prefer to continue to live your fake life, or would you prefer to have knowledge of what's really real?| If solipsism is true then my present reality is the real reality anyway. So in the end I choose not to believe it and go on from there. |
Actually, you seem to be choosing to believe that the question of whether solipsism is true or not is irrelevant to anything you might think or feel or do. I would tend to agree. I don't seem to be able to not experience "the world," so either something outside is imposing "reality" on me or I'm imposing it upon myself and can't stop. Either way, the result is the same: the appearance of a measurable objective reality which contains independent actors other than myself.
From that basis, we can build science, and it simply doesn't matter if we're all just brains in vats being fed a computer-simulated reality. The virtual world is our reality, and it apparently has rules and logic and all the rest. But the nagging doubts remain, and so claiming that anything is "absolutely true" is a stretch, especially since the "absolutely" part rests upon nothing more than your disbelief in solipsism. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2012 : 08:54:34 [Permalink]
|
I independently invented solipsism when I was about 10. The notion had me gobsmacked for a week or two. I even imagined that whenever I walked, I was rolling the sphere of the Earth with my feet, like a massless beach-ball, while I myself remaining put.
What got me out of solipsism was that it was absolutely useless as a "philosophy." There seemed to be just as much evidence that everyone around me was real as there was for solipsism. (Not much evidence either way, actually.) I finally found out its name and looked it up. Turns out it's one of the banes of philosophy. I gave it up after I realized how useless, and essentially crazy it was. But it had been kind of fun thinking it was a possibility. It's [self-)flattering to think of oneself as the center of everything.
But it's even nicer to have real friends. And Buster, my dog, was just too great to be less real than I was. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/23/2012 08:55:13 |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2012 : 09:19:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
That is ritual, not religion.
Religion is a set of teachings that assumes a God belief. The rituals add to the religion a ceremonial aspect but are unnecessary to religion in general.
|
For a Catholic I don't think this is true. They believe sins are forgiven through the mass which is necessary. Without the ritual their religion is worthless. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2012 : 09:37:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
I don't think reality gives a hoot whether you gain or lose by believing in any particular proposition. |
I agree, but I can use what value it has as a criteria for rejecting it.
| Originally posted by Dave W.[br ]Well, there are other alternatives, which still need justification for rejection. Like that you're nothing more than a sophisticated computer program executing as a part of a virtual universe created by beings far more intelligent than us. The same problems attend that scenario that attend classical solipsism. But would you prefer to continue to live your fake life, or would you prefer to have knowledge of what's really real? |
So to accept the reality that I believe to be true I have to have a reason to reject an infinite amount of alternate realities that cannot be rejected? This seems insane. Why can’t I just accept my present reality that I believe to be true and have the most evidence for and move on with my life?
| Originally posted by Dave W.[br ]Actually, you seem to be choosing to believe that the question of whether solipsism is true or not is irrelevant to anything you might think or feel or do. I would tend to agree. I don't seem to be able to not experience "the world," so either something outside is imposing "reality" on me or I'm imposing it upon myself and can't stop. Either way, the result is the same: the appearance of a measurable objective reality which contains independent actors other than myself. |
I agree with this.
| Originally posted by Dave W.[br ]From that basis, we can build science, and it simply doesn't matter if we're all just brains in vats being fed a computer-simulated reality. The virtual world is our reality, and it apparently has rules and logic and all the rest. But the nagging doubts remain, and so claiming that anything is "absolutely true" is a stretch, especially since the "absolutely" part rests upon nothing more than your disbelief in solipsism. |
But do you believe that solipsism is either true or it is not? We may not be able to absolutely know truth but absolute truth does exist.
|
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2012 : 09:43:31 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Valiant DancerHaver read the books of Tolkien or Heinlein? Those individuals weave great tapistries of farsical lands. Since all of this is occurring within your head (such as fevered dreams), the mind need not physically create anything. It merely has to fire the appropriate neurons to simulate interaction with the environment. |
But Tolkien never had to explain the physics of how his creation worked as my mind would have to do if solipsism is true, since I have been in math and science classes where I just did not understand what they were talking about. I also am pretty sure there are concepts out there that my mind could not understand even if I studied them forever.
Originally posted by Valiant DancerThe old "I reject your reality and substitute my own" ploy.
Well done Doctor.
|
?? What do you mean?
|
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2012 : 10:53:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
| Originally posted by Valiant DancerHaver read the books of Tolkien or Heinlein? Those individuals weave great tapistries of farsical lands. Since all of this is occurring within your head (such as fevered dreams), the mind need not physically create anything. It merely has to fire the appropriate neurons to simulate interaction with the environment. |
But Tolkien never had to explain the physics of how his creation worked as my mind would have to do if solipsism is true, since I have been in math and science classes where I just did not understand what they were talking about. I also am pretty sure there are concepts out there that my mind could not understand even if I studied them forever.
|
But why? You, as the observer, don't know why the phenomenon occurs. You just see it.
Originally posted by Valiant DancerThe old "I reject your reality and substitute my own" ploy.
Well done Doctor.
|
?? What do you mean?
|
"The Hand of Omega", Doctor Who, BBC serial circa 1974. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2012 : 12:18:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
One could, like Tolkien, construct an internally consistent magical world with no real crossover to the physical universe. The result may be a wonderful work of fiction, but it's not going to be referred to by historians as a "primary source." Theoretical physicists have constructed various "string theory" hypotheses, with varying degrees of self-consistency. But unless and until they become falsifiable in the real world, they aren't yet science, and can't become real theories.
So basically, I question the validity and relevance in the physical world of concepts that are based upon self-contained, often circular, reasoning.
|
Sure, but then you're determining what's relevant or useful, not necessarily what's true. Deductive implications are eternally true if we're to accept the validity of logic -- it's a different question as to whether they're good for anything.
I'm not sure what you mean in saying that currently-unfalsifiable string theory hypotheses aren't science. They're not confirmed, or rather, haven't failed to be falsified by experiment -- scientific method really shows that hypotheses don't conflict with reality, the reasoning for them could well be very wrong.
I agree those hypotheses you mention in string theory are not on the same level as things that have been experimentally tested in a falsifiable form, but it's certainly a necessary step in the scientific process to make these hypotheses and work out the implications of them until we can make one of these implications falsifiable with current experimental capabilities.
Failing that, seeing that they don't conflict with more established pieces of knowledge is worthwhile because we may find that an implication of the hypothesis conflicts with something we're pretty confident about, and therefore, find how we need to re-structure the hypothesis so that this implication is not here, or which established facts may need to be re-evaluated. All of this seems to get lost in merely calling a hypothesis an educated guess, choosing hypotheses is one of the more complex parts of the process. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2012 : 12:28:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
But the nagging doubts remain, and so claiming that anything is "absolutely true" is a stretch, especially since the "absolutely" part rests upon nothing more than your disbelief in solipsism.
|
So, basically we reject solipsism because we don't like it, or we think the world is meaningless otherwise? I think this is the decision I make, but I can't claim any validity for the decision, as it's really based solely on personal preference.
Does this make us hypocritical for claiming the apologetic argument that "life has no meaning for me without God, so I believe in Him" is no good? Or, by the fact that both people are rejecting solipsism, should empiricism become the standard for everyone after that agreed-upon, but unjustified, rejection of solipsism? |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 03/23/2012 12:32:42 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2012 : 13:40:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Originally posted by Dave W.
I don't think reality gives a hoot whether you gain or lose by believing in any particular proposition. |
I agree, but I can use what value it has as a criteria for rejecting it. |
But then you have to justify the use of a values-based epistemology. Does the fact that the truth of a proposition have some value make it more likely to be true?| So to accept the reality that I believe to be true I have to have a reason to reject an infinite amount of alternate realities that cannot be rejected? This seems insane. Why can’t I just accept my present reality that I believe to be true and have the most evidence for and move on with my life? |
Because you don't actually have any evidence for any external reality until you reject solipsism. The very notion of evidence requires some way to objectively measure reality. If you are indeed trapped in your own head, then you've got no evidence of anything outside your own thoughts.| But do you believe that solipsism is either true or it is not? |
Yes, there either is an external reality or there isn't. One of those two possibilities must be true.| We may not be able to absolutely know truth but absolute truth does exist. |
I'm not so sure about that. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2012 : 13:44:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
So, basically we reject solipsism because we don't like it, or we think the world is meaningless otherwise? I think this is the decision I make, but I can't claim any validity for the decision, as it's really based solely on personal preference. |
I don't know who the "we" refers to, because I reject solipsism because its truth value is irrelevant given that I cannot act differently based on it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Christianity, immaterialism, and falsifiability
