A Priori Proof That Refutes Solipsism

I believe I have stumbled upon proof a priori that refutes solipsism.

I’ll begin by defining solipsism:
Solipsism is the belief that only the mind exists - and nothing else exists externally of the mind, but these perceived “external objects” are actually nothing more than an illusionary product of the mind itself.

From this definition, Solipsism can be broken down into realistic (idealism) and surrealistic sub-categories:

• The ‘realistic’, or idealistic, sub-category is characterized by a radical skepticism of “reality”. It states that although external objects have the possibility of existing as the Kantian “things in themselves”, any knowledge pertaining to their existence could only be expressed as a concept. Since any concepts are products of the minds in which those concepts are contained, there is no way to confirm that the actual concepts exist independently of the mind - this principle is technically valid - however, does it prove the validity of realistic solipsism? This form of solipsism can not imply anything more than a highly radical (and in my opinion, quite stubborn) skepticism that is used to bring into question the validity of any information. I will be refuting this principle later on in this post with a priori knowledge, after I refute the next sub-category of solipsism. Although I can not completely mitigate the principle’s validity, I will be providing irrefutable proof through a priori knowledge that the solipsist principle can be applied to nothing other than skepticism.

• The ‘surrealistic’ sub-category is characterized by rejecting any notions of “external objects” altogether, and argues that the only thing which exists is the mind itself. I will be completely refuting this branch of solipsism with a priori knowledge:

Since the surrealistic sub-category of solipsism states that the only thing which exists is the mind, then this implies that the mind is indivisible and absolute. We can further extrapolate on this by then saying that “In order for surrealistic solipsism to be true, their can be no parts or sub-structures of the mind, as the mind can only exist as a whole”. It is here that this category of solipsism is negated and contradicts itself - since the mind is an indivisible ‘whole’ with no parts or structure, then it could only be represented as a ‘point of singularity’ that exists complete in itself. However, a singularity such as this (which would lack any geometrical dimensions) would have no comprehendible way of representing itself or its own existence. Not only that, but the singularity would lack any method for representing anything at all.

Since surrealistic solipsism claims that the external world only exists as an illusionary representation, it is not possible for the mind to exist as an indivisible whole, because such an indivisible whole would have no way of making such a representation. The mechanism required for any “representation” requires at least more than one part. Also, these parts and sub-categories of the mind must be capable of performing a cascade of interactions - as these interactions are what constitutes the said ‘representation’.

In order for their to be a “representation” within the mind, the mind must be divisible (as stated above) - and in turn, it must have parts and sub-structures. However, now that we have confirmed that such a hypothetical mind is divisible and must consist of parts, there ceases to be a reference point when stating that “the mind is the only thing that exists” - since ‘only’ implies one. Even if we were to say that “one indivisible part of the divisible mind” was the reference point, the other parts of the mind would exist externally of that “one indivisible part” and hence, contradict the principle of surrealistic solipsism.
Even if we were to say “as a whole, all of the mind’s parts are the only things that exist”, this would still require some external factor or ‘input’ in order to trigger the cascade of events leading to the representation - therefore, quite the inverse is true about the Surrealistic Solipsist Principle: The mind exists only as a function of external phenomenon; therefore, the fact that external phenomenon exists independently of the mind is the only thing that allows the mind to exist as representation.

A believer in Surrealistic Solipsism could keep providing counter-arguments, but ultimately the believer would be stating no more than the Realistic Solipsist Principle (any representation of an external phenomenon is a product of the mind that the representation resides in).
I have just given you a priori proof that “Surrealistic Solipsism” is false.

Now, let us move on to negating the realistic solipsist argument:

The Realistic Solipsist Principle essentially states that “The mind is only capable of representing knowledge a posteriori; any knowledge the mind has a priori could have only been gained a posteriori (You only know that “2+2=4” (which is knowledge a priori) because through experience you have learned that “2+2=4”) -Therefore, a priori knowledge does not actually exist since it is dependent on experience.”

Given that a priori knowledge does actually exist, all one has to do in order to negate “Realistic Solipsism” is prove that a priori knowledge exists independently of a posteriori knowledge. I am about to prove to you that a priori knowledge does exist independently of a posteriori knowledge, and a posteriori knowledge only exists as a result of the fact that a priori knowledge exists independently of it.

First of all, in order for their to be a posteriori knowledge, there must be a reference point - since “experience” requires a reference point to be “experience”. I will be referring to this “experiencer” as a mediator, or a mediator of experience.

How is the reference point formed? A reference point for experience can only be formed when the mediator of experience (in this case, the mediators of experience are living creatures) has an inclination towards actions which are independent of the mediator itself - you could consider such “inclinations towards actions” to be synonymous with “goals” or “drives”.

An example of this “inclination towards a goal” is a living creature’s drive to eat. It is knowledge a priori that a living creature must eat or it will die (it is considered a priori because it is essentially saying "a living creature must sustain the fact that it is living). This is true for not only the drive to eat, but the drive for reproduction and homeostasis as well. Collectively, these drives form the “Will to Live”.

Where did the “Will to Live” come from? Simply put, the “Will to Live” was extracted over time through evolution (because any living organisms that did not have a means to maintain their own survival did not continue as living creatures).
So how does this process of “The Will to Live being formed through evolution” relate to a priori knowledge? The “Will to Live” is a grand accumulation (that takes place over all the generations of a species’ ancestry) of a posteriori knowledge that reflects an a priori principle.

• in other words, knowledge gained a posteriori is nothing more than the difference between a mediator reflecting an a priori principle, and the a priori principle itself.

A Priori Principles - Mediator = A Posteriori Knowledge
or,
Principle - Mediator = Experience

The ‘Will to Live’ of all living creatures is nothing more than a slightly-flawed reflection of the principles a priori those creatures work towards.

This negates Realistic Solipsism by stating that in order for the notion of “experience” to exist, principles must exist independently of the “experiencer” in order to form a reference point. - in turn, boiling the “Realistic Solipsist Principle” into nothing more than skepticism of one’s own experiential reference point.

What would happen if there was no difference (which is experience) between a mediator and the a priori principles of that mediator’s existence? (Essentially the question is, what if the realistic solipsist principle was true? what if Knowledge A Priori - Mediator = 0?) Then the mediator wouldn’t exist. For example, if there was no “drives” or “Will to Live” due to the hypothetical situation that mediators of experience did not have any goals to work towards, then what would the mediator be? The mediator must in some way be flawed, and must in some way be temporary.

Say, hypothetically, there was no need for food because through technological advancements we gained an internally installed machine which generated its food for our own bodies ) and there was no need for a drive for sex because technological advancements allowed for cloning machines - and there was no drive for homeostasis either, because that too was under control entirely by machines. What would humanity be? Wouldn’t the Will to Live begin to dissipate due to a lack of environmental pressure?

We would have no reference point to base our experience off of, and therefore, we would lack any experience at all - would we not?
And is this not what humanity is working towards and rapidly approaching - a human existence where the will to live no longer has any evolutionary pressure maintaining it? So what will result of humanity?

Behold, Nietzsche’s Ubermensch. The Ubermensch is capable of giving value and meaning to existence without needing the principles a priori that found the Ubermensch’s existence. The Ubermensch is capable of deriving meaning out of existence by the act of experience itself. The act of creating/viewing art; finding joy merely in experiencing the world around you, the act of socialization without purpose - these are activities which the Ubermensch will excel in.

Even in the lack of anything at all - the Ubermensch will still be able to give value; and his triumphant voice will forever echo throughout the halls of eternity.

This looks like an a posteriori proof that surrealistic solipism is false, not an a priori proof. The concept of the mind needing parts and interactions to function has not always been around. This knowledge is a posteriori not a priori.

No, because in order for a “representation” to be formed, something must be at work forming the representation.

of course if you posit a watch maker before the watch, the watch maker must exist…

it is still circular

-Imp

The knowledge that a representation needs something to cause it comes empirical evidence(which makes it a posteriori). It is not based upon strict logic( a priori). Assuming that causality is a priori, it seems as though there isn’t a reason for believing that things are caused versus things just happening. Is it logical to think that the universe would work in a causal way without ever seeing that the universe is causaul?

It is a priori because a part of the definition of “representation” itself, what constitutes a “representation”, necessitates “something standing for something”.

When it comes to the mind making representations (since it could be reworded to say “the mind constructing the image/presentation of something that it is not by itself”), something must be creating the representation since this is derived from the definition of representation itself.

Nothing “just happens” - even the seemingly random events taking place at a subatomic level still have their causes, however obscure and arbitrary those causes might be

That’s a posteriori, just ask Hume…

What’s the difference between something “just happening” and something happening for obscure, arbitrary causes about which we know nothing?

It makes sense that a representation must be representing something. This is a priori. By definition all representations represent something. If we assume that our minds are a representation of the represented surrealistic solipism can’t be true. What a priori knowledge can help us make this jump? The jump that are minds are representations of something that is represented. The argument is that the mind has parts and processes that deliver the representation of the represented and that these parts and processes are directly influenced by the actions of the represented. This is a scientific discovery. Science has shown the a posteriori proof that the mind behaves in certain consistent ways when subjected to the enviroment. Science is empirical and therefore a posteriori. Its discoveries can not be used to make a purely a priori argument. Without the a posteriori discoveries of science there would be no reason to believe that the universe behaves in a consistent rational manner. It is only through the discoveries of science that we know that things don’t “just happen”.

Even long before the age of modern science, philosophers (such as Plato) claimed that the world works in a consistent and rational manner - and with reason alone we could determine the outcome of phenomenon.
We do not need the advent of modern science to prove that the mind must work in parts -
Just as 2+2=4 is a priori knowledge, so is:
A Representation at very least requires one geometrical dimension, as well as the aspect of time - this in order for even the most simplest of “representations” to occur.
If the mind was a complete entity and whole in itself (that is, if there was nothing outside of the mind) and the mind had no parts or structure, then it would be a 0-dimensional point. There is no comprehensible way that a “0-dimension point” could form a representation - yet alone, become aware of this representation.

If that’s not enough, a 0-dimensional point (being the only thing in existence) couldn’t have “time” applied to it, since the only way to gauge time is by movement or a change in position relative to something else - both of which would require for something else to exist outside of the mind in to compare the mind to.
Since our mind is without a doubt the subject of time (this we know of for certain), then there either must be something outside of the mind, or we must say that the mind has structure and parts (therefore, not being 0 dimensional)
If the mind were then a segment of a line, then this line now has structure and could be divisible (the line could be split into two halves). Therefore, there is nothing which the concept of “the only thing in existence” can use as a reference point.

If that’s not enough, think about how your mind is able to comprehend 2+2=4 (which is a priori knowledge) - yet, if your mind was one indivisible whole (that is, one without parts), it would not be possible to represent the idea of 4, since more than one part is needed to represent 4.

Once again, this will ultimately boil down to nothing more than Realistic Solipsism, which in turn boils down to skepticism.

Imagine someone devoid of sense experience but having a mind. How would they be able to understand time and space? It would seem as though they would think they were all that existed. They wouldn’t think of themselves as a three demensional creature. This would a true a priori test is we could ask this person if they could understand time and space.

The problem here is the assumption that what the mind defines is only the mind once it is observed/defined as being so.

Before it’s defined, reflected upon as being such a ‘container’ or ‘combining concept’ in hindsight, it’s not yet the mind. But then “what else is it?” just runs into the same problem. Dare you leave existence undefined as existence? So-called unconscious observation, or simply “life” (before being defined as such) does this all the time outside of hindsight (or so hindsight tells me).

A priori is just stupid. It’s only valid when equating multiple terms that define the same thing. 2+2 defines the same thing as 4, so saying they’re equivalent gets you nowhere. This isn’t knowledge, it’s repetition. Redefinition. This is a priori knowledge of the definition of “a priori”. No, I didn’t learn anything here either + am just as stupid as I was “before this experience”.

agree to disagree.

If I wanted people to truly discuss what I wrote, I shouldn’t have posted it on these philosophy forums.

When people here read threads, they tend to just scan for the first thing that they can criticize or argue against - often the criticism rely solely on the varying contexts between the critic and the person he is criticizing.
Basically, no one took these people seriously in real life, so they came on this Philosophy Forum to soothe their narcissism during their retreat into self-pity.

For this thread in particular, all the replies have been disputing what constitutes “a priori” and “a posteriori” - My main topic has so far gone completely undiscussed. If their was actually any incentive to look into the main topic of my post, it would have been the apparent priority of any responses.

Nice to meet you here.

Now, don’t sulk - the point is, your topic aims to provide a priori refutation of solipsism. If it’s not a priori, you haven’t succeeded. The main topic is being discussed. What would you like your coterie of devoted admirers to be discussing instead?

There is just no way to refute a radical solipsism. The idea that everything is generated in the brain cannot be proven false, because there is no means by which to prove it, no way to get out of our own brain. That is the point though, that is what solipsism is all about. We are stuck in our brain, therefore how do we know there is anything else? It could be true that nothing else exists but the mind.

But also, it cannot be proven either. So the correct way to “refute” it isnt to try to generate cogito-type arguments, which will always be circular. The correct way is just to see that the question is meaningless, because there is absolutely no way to evaluate it. The question cannot be proven wrong, a priori or a posteriori. But the good thing is that this doesnt matter, because the question is meaningless anyways.

Not meaningless to think about, it can be fun to think about, and can provide material for us to use to think or grow or learn about ourselves. But it is meaningless in the fact that there is no way, ever, that it can be determined true or false, even to a very simple or relative standard of proof. So why worry about it?

[quote=“The Last Man”]
There is just no way to refute a radical solipsism. The idea that everything is generated in the brain cannot be proven false, because there is no means by which to prove it, no way to get out of our own brain. That is the point though, that is what solipsism is all about. We are stuck in our brain, therefore how do we know there is anything else? It could be true that nothing else exists but the mind.

[quote]
If you read my post, I disproved that

I did read it, and no, you did not disprove it. Any attempt to disprove the solipsistic claim must be circular. It must assume within itself the end that it is seeking to disprove.

but in order for their to be a perceived “reference point” there must be something to base that reference upon

“Solipsism is the belief that only the mind exists - and nothing else exists externally of the mind, but these perceived “external objects” are actually nothing more than an illusionary product of the mind itself.”

actually, solipsism doesnt claim that nothing exists except the mind. It claims that we can never know if anything exists except our own mind. And therefore casts doubt upon experience as external, claiming it is entirely possible that everything is really generated by the mind, and there is no external at all. " The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist". The strong position of “there IS NO external non-mental reality” is just as unjustified under solipsism as the position affirming external objective reality; neither position can ever be known. That is kind of the point, really.

As a quick example, this: “Since the surrealistic sub-category of solipsism states that the only thing which exists is the mind, then this implies that the mind is indivisible and absolute” is false. There is no necessary reason why the mind could not be “all that exists” and still exist fragmented in an interconnected set of mental parts or processes. I believe the conclusion you arrive at here comes from an understanding of ‘mind’ that is very simplistic and unrealistic. The belief that the mind is just a “singularity” or is “indivisible” is not necessary for the solipsistic argument, and therefore while you correctly identify that such claims of indivisibility and singularity are false, this does not directly address solipsism itself. Also, “since ‘only’ implies one” is also false. “only” can apply to things which exist with subparts. Think of a room with “only one person in it”. there is only one person, yet there are many aspects and parts of this person. There are many THINGS in the room, cells and elements and organs and all that, but still only one PERSON. Likewise there could be only one mind, and yet this mind is comprised of many mental parts, each of which is mental in itself in the same way that the cells of a person are a part of that one person.

As for the a priori a posteriori distinctions, this just tends to confuse these sorts of issues. We cannot have an experience without an EXPERIENCE, clearly. This means that so called a priori knowledge is impossible, because any act of knowing or knowing-event must be an experience, which requires a) an experiencer and b) an experienced. However, solipsism could still maintain here, as both of these a and b could be generated from within a mind. The experiencer could be experiencing itself, which is entirely possible. We experience our own thoughts all the time. As for logically necessary knowledge, this is said to be a priori, but also depends upon an experiencing itself in the same way. “All bachelors are unmarried” is logically true, because it is a definition. But such knowledge required experience with the concepts of bachelor and its definition of an unmarried man. There is no knowledge which can be gained without an experience of some sort. And once you already have experienced the concept of bachelor, in the future you are experiencing the memory which contains this knowledge. The knowledge never just “exists” without being experienced in an interactive way. All knowledge is an experience, yet there is also no reason why these experiences could not be generated by your own mind, although as ive stated before, its also equally pointless to assume that they ARE all generated by your mind.

Dont get me started on the a priori, a posteriori stuff, trust me its all a load of crap. There is no such distinction. Likewise analytic/synthetic is just made up garbage. Dont let yourself get confused or worried over such things. There is no such thing as a distinction, all knowledge is arrived at by exactly the same means.

By the way I do agree with you that solipsism is useless, or absurd, but only because it is self-defeating. It doubts everything by establishing a standard of proof that can never be met: we are told we must PROVE external reality, which we can never do, because we have absolutely no way at all of obtaining even a single datum of information without relying on our local minds and internal subjective state. Solipsism isnt anything to worry about, because it sets up an impossible standard, like saying “you cant prove that God does NOT exist?! So there!”. But its useless to waste time on such things.

Solipsism is not incorrect or wrong. It is entirely possible that every experience you have is internally generated. There is no logical reason why the mind cannot stimulate itself internally. We do this all the time when we think. Sure, it seems pretty rediculous and unlikely, and its nothing to lose sleep over, but nevertheless its still there as a logical possibility, just as the existence of God is. Neither can be proven nor disproven, but that is exactly why it shouldnt really bother you at all.

It’s really not.

Learning the definition of a word is not the same process as learning facts by experience or learning how to do something. You form a structuring system for experience, and you collect experiences. There are weaknesses in your system, and weaknesses in your experience, but they are different, and require different criticism.

I do agree that it’s not something to get confused or worried over, though. And it’s not as straightforward as a priori = analytic = necessary, so if you get into it it’s important to keep them clearly separated.

My point is that the process by which experiences occur is the same whether you are experiencing a priori or a posteriori knowledge. Yes, we understand the concepts of these knowledges themselves differently, I get that. However, assuming any sort of ontological significance beyond this is false. When you experience the knowledge of “Where was Hitler born?” and you have to go look it up in a history book, your conscious aware brain interacts directly with data, which filtered into it via the senses. If you are experiencing the knowledge of “Are all bachelors unmarried men?”, your conscious aware brain interacts directly with data, which filtered into it via sense impressions stored in your brain already. Note also that such impressions must also exist for you to understand “Hitler”, “Birth”, “year”, etc.

Cognitive data is the same, it is processed information run into and through the brain, and generated into an experience. Ultimately all data in the brain is the same. Whether it runs through the eyes and retina and visual cortex and higher cognition to you, or whether it runs from a copy of a data which in the past ran through the eyes and retina and visual cortex and higher cognition to you, is the same. Memories are the exact same substance as “external” experiences. They are streams of data, copied for further use. Whether data streams from a copy in the memory, or it streams through a sense organ is irrelevant. It is not EXPERIENCED until it is generated internally, holographically and consciously for you to experience. Experiences are constructed from data.

That was my only point, really. Yes, we can identify the difference between the source of data, whether it is authentic or whether it is a copy of a previously authentic experience, but the brain treats either case exactly the same. And besides, virutally every single experience is a synthesis of these two anyways. In fact I cannot imagine a single experience that is not.