Straw man. I never said anything about absolute perfect knowledge.
My main criticism of solipsim is that it’s a buck stupid idea. Some ideas are just buck stupid. I am asked by the solipsist to believe in a Dr Parnassus-type Imaginarium of “world”, which is no world at all. And the minute I do, you and everyone else can just hush up, because you don’t exist.
Is there a necessary link between my own “mental states” and physical ones? Is this the logical necessity you’re talking about? You have to be a dualist to believe that all states aren’t physical to begin with. But this is the kind of trouble you can get into when you believe in the literal existence of a “mind”.
No, you implied that the existence of unknown knowledge refutes the idea of solipsism. That is the entire point of the lost keys example, else why use it? If you have some other reason why the sole example of not being able to find one’s keys supposedly refutes solipsism, Im all ears.
Ah. Of course.
Solipsism says nothing as to the existence of others - it supposes that they exist within your mind. That doesnt mean that they do not exist. Its a common misunderstanding of the solipsistic idea.
No, the necessity I mentioned was that when you criticize an idea based on an unnecessary and superfluous aspect of that idea, you are not in fact criticizing the idea.
As I said, if your lost keys example has more to it than the unavailability of knowledge to a sole Mind, you are free to explain it.
And this is patently bad? You have to be a materialist to believe that all states of mind are physical - either assumption is an oversimplification, and furthermore neither are even necessary to the solipsistic idea anyways, so its irrelevant.
Ah, so you dont believe the mind exists. Okay. Make your case.
The word ‘other’ as in ‘other people’ can have more than one meaning. That is sort of the idea of solipsism.
The essence of solipsism does not revolve around one conception of mind. We can entertain any number of formulations for what mind is or how it functions, solipsism does not require a materialist nor a dualist perspective.
Solipsism is more about the idea that one’s mind, whatever it is or however we conceive of its structure, is the sole mind of its type in existence, that all other “minds” and things exist within oneself - or rather the idea is that this concept cannot be outright refuted.
A mind can be a purely physical derivation and still be a mind. The point is that we experience a mind, a consciousness, an awareness and identity, and the way in which this is experienced is wholly different from the way we interact with physical reality or with our own bodies. So regardless of whether or not mind can be reduced to totally physical operations mind can still be seen to exist as an entity of unique properties and of a different type than other organic functions, based on how we personally experience ourselves.
Also a dualism does not presuppose absolute separation, nor does it presuppose that the mind could not derive in emergent fashion from the physical and yet still, in its final distillation and form, be of a different type or quality than its structural precursors and foundations. . . One can indeed move by degrees from one type to another. And in fact I interpret the absolutist conceptual difference in how you understand the possible forms of mind (the separation into either physical or dualist forms) as itself a dualism, a fundamental absolutism which fails to realise that mind might be both derived/emergent from the physical and yet still itself be of a different type and quality than these. But as you say, tangent argument.
Then that would be an example of really smart guys out-thinking themselves. Other people are other people. We really don’t need to fudge that one. “Are they really other”? That’s just creepy.
I’m not playin’ this game. Tell me what you are defending, and not what you’re not defending.
That’s just it. Passive-aggressive philosophy makes me vomit. “It cannot be refuted”. Big fucking deal.
But it’s not.
Gibberish. No offense, but you have said nothing here. We could say that about steam. But steam is not some great metaphysical mystery.
Projection/denial. Passive aggressive.
If I’m a dualist, then why are you arguing with me?
“in my mind” or “in the physical world”… who cares what we call the place where everything exists?
What I don’t get is how you assign ownership to the mind in which everything and everyone exists… that’s like saying “everything exists in my physical world”…
In either case… it’s a shared “location”, it seems to me.
Unless you assign consequences to solipsism, it’s just a problem of language… and nothing else.
Its not “are there” but “how” that is the question to which I refer. The idea is to determine whether or not other people live, think, exist in the same sense as oneself, mentally speaking. Oh wait, I didnt mean to being up mind – brain-like speaking, then. In terms of the inner total of known and unknown functionings and forms of the brain and its processes and structures – feel free to substitite “mind” for that physicalist sum of processes and structures, its all the same thing.
I dont get hung up on single words, when I use them out of necessity to communicate here I am referring to the rich and deeper world of meaning and substance to which the word refers. We could have a debate as to the content of that meaning and substance, but only if we can get past being arrested at the point of a single word “mind”, and if we can get past the dogmatic assumption that “mind” must be either entirely “physical” or it must be fundamentally “dualist” without realizing that these two may be incorporated together underneath one conception of “mind”.
I dont know what I am defending because I cannot begin to determine what you are affirming or rejecting here.
My initial point was to show you that your flippant and belligerent dismissal was unwarranted and quite arrogant. Mostly that your dismissal of other’s bringing this to attention was also equally arrogant. But I suppose youre just having fun here, as you say, joking around, playing. Like I said, I appologize for taking you seriously.
It is the implications of the possibility that there is no way for a human mind (insert: brain-like; inner total of known and unknown functionings and forms of the brain and its processes and structures, whether these are physical/materialist or of some other substance) to know other human minds that is important here - also important is the fact that the human mind (once again, see previous insert) has no way to verify the substantive existence of that which it perceives and assumes to exist - likewise the assumption that “mind is this or that” contains necessarily within it flaws and uncertainties which, perhaps (as is suggested by solipsism) cannot be overcome.
This suggests a fundamental flaw or unavoidable uncertainty at the heart of human consciousness and perception. Which, as a consequence of this, ought to make us take another look at everything which this consciousness and perception creates, thinks, assumes, believes.
It is for me.
The way in which I experience my own thoughts and feelings is wholly different than the way I experience my arm, or a chair, or the sunlight, or this computer. When I open up my arm I see tissue there, blood, and deeper than this a cellular structure composed of elemental molecules. This sort of structure and form is not apparent when I open up a thought or feeling and examine its essence, how it exists. These two types of experiences are completely different, so if we are going on personal experience alone, which I am saying we ought to be doing, we can assume that in all probability and based on these experiences our mind (see previous insert) is of a different essence, substance and/or form than our body and objects “out there” in reality.
I dont know what you mean regarding steam. My point is quite clear. Do you understand the nature of emergent systems and how they become something more, in type and quality and essence, than that grouping of parts which gave rise to it?
What are you talking about…? The point is that you assume that the mind must be either wholly physical or wholly divided from the physical - that is a dualist, black and white conception. My point is that the mind may in fact be both physical and also of a different nature than the physical.
It does betray your arrogance as well as your unseriousness here that you would assume I might not argue with you because I infer that you are in fact a dualist despite your protestations otherwise. My personal opinion of you does not bear upon the ideas that are being discussed here.
Oh please. Live as if they do not. report back to us.
And now the Dogma Card.
I’ve been singing the same song on three different threads for days, now.
My, my.
I sense anger.
But let’s not forget the possibility that we can unbunch our panties and get over it - and ourselves (Tentative - you hit the mark, again) and understand that it’s not very important at all. Unless there is some ramification to this that you’d like to share. because I’d really, truly like to know, finally, just what the friggin’ difference could possibly be.
And this means exactly what to me in my day-to-day life?
No - it means that we are doing this without a net. I suggest we all get over it.
So please - just tell me what this means. If i agree - can I stop having to take a shit every morning? Do I fall in love? Can I finally quit using drugs? What does it mean?
Does it mean that we all dance together in Heaven? What does it mean? Will I get laid more often?
No, I don’t. The mind is a convenience of language. It must be nothing at all. It has no literal existence whatever. It’s a useful word that doesn’t refer to anything specific. It’s like “love” in that way. The mind “may” be? If you don’t know, then why are you arguing with me?
I am completely serious. To have a definite opinion is not arrogant. And i am not being flippant. I just want to know what all this cum is on my computer screen. I want you to tell me one ramification of your thesis that we cannot know if my experience is anything like yours. Tell me how my life would change if I agreed.
Classic example of being all brains and not enough BALLS. I find this problem tends to arise - and did for me - when you begin to buy into all of these different schools of thought. Once you find a ‘comfortable’ mixture between what you’ve learned and your personal bias toward particular aspects of life, you’ve found a perfect recipe for a miserable existence (…in my opinion, of course).
It boils down to a choice as to whether you want to live in lieu of all this ‘philosophical’ knowledge you’ve obtained - thus dissecting yourself endlessly to see which makes the most sense and why. In essence you are creating something of a religion for yourself in that way. Or, on the other hand, you can live - experience, observe, experiment, feel - and decide what you agree with and why. In the case of the former, you applying - and thus restricting - your own thoughts according to what you have gathered. As of the latter, you allow yourself the freedom to think and act without some vague, umbrella term dictating what your course of logic should be.
Life is often illogical, the human mind is often unreasonable. Allowing yourself to come to terms with that is difficult, but you are also setting a foundation for acceptance of logical inconstancies as a human being. Taking all of the various schools of philosophical thought to heart - that is, ‘buying into them’ to some degree - is a never ending game of trying to fit a logical inconsistency into a logical formula. You are, in essence, allowing your philosophy to hinder your living ‘self’ because it serves as a distraction and a humongous source of cognitive dissonance. Especially when you find yourself agreeing with conflicting ideologies…
My point is to educate yourself, learn, and take much time for reflection and introspection – don’t spend so much time pondering the complexities of what you read because all of this is written by men like you (perhaps more educated, or more dedicated to a particular field of knowledge, but they are men none-the-less. They are formulating ‘best-guestimates’ like the rest of us.)
In short, I find that these types of ideas have a tenancy to “fuck you up” when you dwell in them and begin to look at your life through a very particular set of guidelines. Instead, try looking at these philosophical ideas through yourself - decide what is believable and what suits you best. These philosophical ideologies are not meant to “fuck you up”, just open your mind to alternative methods of thought.
In the end, the effect these ideas have on you and the perceived changes in your life, and ‘self’, that ensue are entirely up to you. There is no sense in expanding your mind if you are creating something of a labyrinth for yourself - you will get lost.
As I said, it is about the implications of the thought.
No dogma here.
It is unfortunate you are more interested in insults and dodging points than actually addressing the issues. I might have expected more from a moderator.
I dont make it my business to follow all your posts in all threads. Sorry.
More dismissal, sarcasm. What a wonderful addition to a philosophy forum. How mature.
Then you only sense what you bring to the table here. I have no anger, I am making a point, and I find it amusing how many times and in how many ways you can avoid addressing it.
The ramifications lie in the power of perspective and uncertainty over human consciousness and perception. Most people take for granted what their senses and thoughts tell them – the idea of solipsism is that this taking-for-granted might not be justified.
That it is likely unjustified to take sensation or beliefs at face value, as if they relate directly to some thing “in reality” – that we are wise to question and analyze our thoughts, beliefs, perceptions with this reasonable skepticism and doubt in mind. In this way, liberating ourselves from an unjustified faith in the ability of our mind to deliver reality to us nice and neat as it appears, we gain a certain maturity of thought, a certain space of freedom from within which we can seek to derive or reason more accurate or justified ideas based on the information that our senses deliver to us.
The recognition of the inherent fallability of perception and thought is a prerequisite for a more justified and consistent use of our “mind” (brain, senses if you will), a more genuine self-honesty with ourselves.
It is quite relevant to one’s life, in fact.
To know that we do it without a net and yet be untroubled by this suggests you are a very jaded and burned-out individual who has no more energy or desire left to attain to a more accurate, fulfilling and honest appraisal of the world and of himself.
The point of the “without a net” is precisely that we ought to care about this – but not to get carried away over it, of course. There is in fact quite a large middle ground between your extreme refusal to give any practical credence to this skepticism and the 15 year old depressed punk emo kid who decides that existence is meaningless and all his nihilism and despair.
As I said. The way in which I experience thought and feelings are wholly of a different nature and quality than the way in which I experience my body and “external reality” - take it for what you will.
If you are able to recognize this thought and yet you choose to ignore it, that represents only a willing ignorance on your part. Justify it by telling yourself that it doesnt matter to your “real life” in any way, if you like, but it is and remains only a justification after-the-fact.
If you arent curious about philosophical issues and ideas, why are you here?
It means that the mind might be a derivative of the physical biological body, of a chemical-electrical process like in kind to the rest of the body, and yet, being of a certain structural form and emergent nature that mind is wholly different, above, over this physicalist structure. It means that a strict materialist-physicalist view of the human mind is unjustified.
I recognize the possbility that mind is something over and beyond the body, while also being of the body. I understand that taking a narrow physicalist view which reduces the mind to a nothingness of mere words is foolish, irrational and unjustified - as well as very limiting and confining in a personal sense.
You might accept that your thoughts, perceptions and beliefs are not a simple evidence of a reality that exists just as they suppose you to believe. This frees you from being an unwilling and unaware slave to this perspective, it frees you to explore further possibilities regarding what reality might in fact consist of, what your mind might be in essence, what the relationship is between your body-mind and the reality ‘out there’. These are very legitimate questions, and just because you have to take a shit in the morning regardless of how or if you answer them doesnt change this – if this is your standard for philosophical relevant you might as well drop the entire endeavor.
Why waste your life and time in philosophy? You still have to take a shit in the morning anyways regardless of what you read or think about philosophy. So why bother, if you are so unmotivated by intellectual curiousity and self-exploration and honesty that you cannot be bothered to consider abstract issues of a philosophical and psychological nature ?
I was under the impression that this was a philosophy website. . . . .
Reading comprehension issue. I didn’t accuse you of dogma - you accused me. 'Twas you who played the card.
Ahh, the Moderator Card (see above). I’ve no intention of insulting you, and regret that you took me that way. I have not dodged any points that I thought worthy of response. But I do hope that this doesn’t become about me. That would be boring, even to me.
Then it’s great that we can touch base like this.
I was dismissing an ad hom. It has nothing to do with any philosophical point.
That’s grand.
Might? I am to give up the world for a “might”? I think I’ll pass.
“Beliefs”? Can you be a bit more specific? Dude - you don’t need radical skepticism to question some beliefs. That’s just overkill. All of this - all this in this last quote - drop a tab of acid. You’ll get all the skepticism you need to handle that task, without having to believe that your girlfriend is a figment of your imagination.
And a “certain maturity of thought”? No. You gain panic. If you really believe this stuff.
Look - we can’t have certainty. That’s no reason to go so overboard. Solipsism is beyond an extreme - because it bears no relation to our actual experience. Why should we take a view we have no evidence for, absent some actual benefit?
Liberating ourselves from our own minds? You got that part right.
Yeah - perception is fallible. There’s a difference between “less than perfect” and “useless”. I think you don’t realise how extreme solipsism is. It’s unnecessary for the task at hand. Just don;t believe everything you see. Like your grandma told you. That’s enough. Sometimes I think if you kids listened to your grandma a little more and…but I digress.
I’m not jaded. I’m just too old to go running around like a little girl claiming that the imaginary sky has fallen.
Then calm down. Skepticism is like salt. You need some, but not too much, or you’ll die.
That’s not solipsism. That’s nihilism. Equally stupid, but still different.
Solipsism is great. The Solipsist has all of these people in Hollywood that his mind created, making an assload of money that his mind created, having sexual relations with all of these beautiful women that exist only in his mind because his mind is all that exists, and he’s sitting in a 20 X 30 efficiency apartment eating a cup of Ramen Noodles and pounding the gopher to Paris Hilton’s sex tape.
What a world the Solipsist has created for himself!
Really, he could do better. I know I could. At the very least, I’d be allowed to get plastered at work.
The Nihilist is almost just as good. The Nihilist wants to question whether or not anything has any objective meaning. I think that the Nihilist should do something I call, “Chin-Check Philosophy.” How that works is the Nihilist tilts his head back until his jaw is nearly horizontal, and then he smacks it off of any hard thing he sees until he determines whether or not it has objective meaning. Tell me that there are no fucking necessary laws then, physics, for example. At the end of the exercise, when the Nihlist eventually breaks his jaw, he agrees to become an Empiricist, or at the very worst, an Existentialist.
You’re too excited about this notion that we can’t be absolutely certain about anything… You’re preaching to Faust as though this were some fantastic insight that he was missing and would do well to adopt.
You’re asking him to ponder and take seriously the possibility of solipsism by way of his uncertainty and consequent inability to disprove the truth of it… but you might as well have asked him to disprove the existence of God prior to dismissing the notion. It’s just not necessary… and we need to do no such thing.
It seems to me that Faust has come to terms with uncertainty and has figured out that pondering possibilities we cannot test, is a waste of time… we might as well take seriously and wonder how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
The trick is to get over it… and move on.
We have no absolute certainty… now what?
Assume Solipsism?
Why?
Any idea can be useful and have personal implications for how and what we think even if we dont “believe” the idea or think that it is in fact true. Solipsism and all skeptical ideas are like this. Dismissing the entire concept out of hand is just as unjustified as believing in it wholeheartedly. And dismissing other’s taking the idea into consideration as pointless or fruitless is also unjustified - the idea can have personal relevance to people in different ways, like all things, and the idea that a belief or theory need be “true” or “false” or “meaningful” across the board for all people in the same way is another implicit dogmatism. Some people derive benefit in a personal way from contemplating these things, others do not. Some people enjoy such contemplations, others dont. The skeptical idea itself has psychological power, and that alone renders it meaningful and useful as a tool of self-exploration and philosophical inquiry.
Solipsism cannot be falsified or proven so clearly there is no reason to “believe” or affirm it. But does this mean that the implications of the inherent uncertainty in human perception and thought that is at the root of the solipsistic concept are not useful or relevant? No. Skepticism is something to entertain for philosophic purposes, as well as for the purpose of utilizing these as methods or tools of self-exploration. An idea need not be able to change a practical aspect of your day to day life in order to be useful philosophically or psychologically.
And dont worry Faust, I have grown tired of our conversation as well.
Mad Man, I am not saying I believe or anyone ought to believe in solipsism - I am saying that to dismiss it as useless merely because we do not believe in it is wrong, from a philosophic and/or personal psychological standpoint. I do not lose sleep over solipsism. In fact I rarely think on it. But I used to ponder the idea a lot, when I was younger. From this I gained much insight into how I was thinking and acting on these thoughts, insight that has led me to set more reasonable and effective standards for how I form my beliefs and judgements - in addition to this, recognizing the inherent uncertainty at the heart of human thought and perception, the interpretation and thus skewing of information “from reality” has had implications on my ideas regarding religion, morality, politics. When I was beginning to think about philosophical ideas I used skepticism as a tool to refine my ideas and concepts into better forms, cutting out inaccurate and unjustified assumptions that I had previously held (such as, we can know reality directly, or that there is absolute or unconditional truth or events in reality, or that we could know these if there were, or that it even matters at all if there are or are not, or if the ideas of the unconditional or absolute even have meaning at all, etc).
The “trick” is not to “move on” but to do so in a way which elevates one’s thoughts and ideas to a better level, with more accuracy and with less implicit assumptions and inaccuracies. Skepticism is useful to this end. Perhaps you and Faust have already attained to this sort of refinement long ago and have no more real use for skeptical theories - but that does not mean that the theories themselves are not useful anymore to others or that they are “meaningless” in themselves. Basically I object to the standard that an idea or concept needs to be able to be verified or proven in some manner, or that it needs to be directly relevant to some day to day aspect of our lives, in order to be useful. Philosophy regularly deals with abstract issues that have no discernable impact or relevant to our day to day lives, and this is one of the strengths of philosophy, not a weakness.
Like I said, I do not lose any sleep over solipsism, mostly because I have personally come to terms with it and where it stands within my ideas and paradigms. But that does not mean that losing sleep over solipsism is itself wrong or irrational, because these sorts of skeptical problems are intended to make us take a closer and more sincere, penetrating look at ourselves and our habitual assumptions.
I don’t mean to talk down to you here… but are you not conflating solipsism with skepticism?
I would agree with you that learning to be skeptical and critical minded is very valuable… and perhaps we might use solipsism as a tool… an example of skepticism in the extreme, to train our minds in “thinking outside the box”, as it were. But that does not mean that we need to take the notion seriously… we do not need to believe solipsism is “true” or even “likely” to be true in order to make use of it in the way you suggest.
We are what we are, we experience what we do… the problem is creating a mental model, a framework, a conception, (not to mention, communicate this notion) that can describe it all and allow us to “understand” our world and ourselves so as to better maneuver the terrain… As a representation of “reality as we know it” solipsism is not our best option. The rejection of it is fairly justified in that regard, I would argue.
Exactly, this is my point. I am saying that we do not need to believe in it or affirm that it is true - I am saying that the idea is still useful and meaningful even when we do not believe it is true. Thus, using the fact that the solipsistic theory is not true (unverifiable, unfalsifiable) as a reason to dismiss the idea altogether is unjustified.
The refusal to believe it or assign it any sort of truth or affirmative status is of course justified. But my point is that ideas and concepts do not need to be believed or intuited on an emotional level of affirmation in order to be useful to us - in fact I have found that sometimes the most useful ideas are those which do not have these anchors and chains of belief and emotional attachment. I agree with your view on mental modeling, with the addition that we can use ideas and concepts to not only create these sorts of models but to constantly refine and improve them, as well as use ideas/concepts and the paradigms/models which they create to explore ourselves in a more deep way, in terms of how the mind functions, what the mechanisms of the psyche are, what is really going on when we have a thought or feeling, these sorts of things. Ideas and concepts, paradigms and models are useful in their own right because they sustain the overall conceptual and perceptive frameworks, they keep us stable and grounded in our lives so that we may continue to survive and attain a semblance of consistency that is required of us in this world, but they are also useful because they are tools and methods not just for questioning and refining themselves as conceptual constructs and models but also for exploring and discovering the deeper pre-conscious and unconscious functions and processes which give rise to thoughts and ideas. A tremendous amount of self-knowledge can be gained by using ideas in this manner.
Whether or not we need the solipsistic idea to this end is of couse different for each individual. As I said I personally dont use it much anymore, but I realise that others can and do, in the same way that it was once useful to me for breaking free from confining modes of thought and the limiting and unknown assumptions that are at the basis of much of man’s common ideas and beliefs.
