Actually the discussion concerned what is unavoidably self-evident, which happens to be able to give rise ONLY to Solipsism as fundamental to everything (hence the title of the thread being Solipsism and not reasonsing).
Perception (as direct sensation as a whole) is the only thing that cannot be denied or refuted. If perception were taken away from everything, not even existence would be even considered by anyone or anything. Existence RELIES on perception, as does knowledge of it.
Even reason does not preclude perception. Without perception, we would have zero material with which to reason with or about.
As such, reason is not required to assess such fundaments. Perception is beyond reason, reason is an afterthought.
Solipsism is true because of the circular reasoning that it is THE doctrine based ONLY on direct sensory perception, because direct sensory perception is the ONLY thing that is self-evident. From this tautology, I used reason to deduce that existence precedes perception, and also that for existence to be true, it has to be known to be true, and to be known to be true requires the return to the fundamental axiom of perception.
Any reasoned proof is based on premises/assumptions. The proof of these premises/assumptions relies on further premises/assumptions ad infinitum.
Nothing true is gained from such a spiral, only exploration - not until something becomes unavoidably self-evident. Only at this point can any secure basis be found in favour of anything at all. So indirectly, this thread asks for something that is unavoidably self-evident - assuming the desire is to solve rather than merely discuss of course.
Perhaps you are referring to the ability to perceive specific things in any way that is remotely meaningful. To this, I would agree. But I am not talking about perceiving things, I am talking about perceiving at all. Before meaning can be abstracted through long exposure, repetition and consistency, in light of change, no “thing” is perceived. There is just perception, though of no “thing” (yet). For this alone, even the faculty of reason is not required. And of course, as I said, reason is nothing without anything perceived to apply it to. This necessitates that perception comes first.
In case you’re referring to something entirely different then my apologies - please explain rather than just state your conclusion.
I’m afraid that is merely an assumption, that happens to be untrue. Declared definitions premise all proofs before axiomatic assertions are made.
A great many proofs, especially in mathematics, are entirely definitional logic, requiring absolutely no axiomatic assumptions.
Solipsism is an issue of ontology. It is strictly through definitional logic that it can be proven to be incoherent/illogical/invalid.
Logic is merely the recognition of associations between defined entities. The definitions can be provided entirely and thus there are no perceptions required other than the communication of the argument to the reader/thinker.
Merely receiving raw data is called sensing or sensation. Perception is the correlation of that data.
The correlation process is entirely unconscious and subconscious logic, based upon physiologically presumed association with which to correlate physical attributes such as location, size, and time. An empirical proof for that can be merely the added or removed eyeglasses that allow for the same data to reach the eyes, but rearranged from how the unconscious physiologically based encoder expected it. The person becomes blind due to not being able to correlate the light striking his eyes even though it is the same light, same raw data. Shapes can no longer be perceived. Perception is lost due to natural correlation being encrypted beyond the logic abilities inherent in natural physiological optical processing.
Proof (and actually even “unavoidably self-evident” concerns) require logic and at least presumed definitions if not stated definitions. Truth assertions are not required, especially concerning ontologies such as solipsism.
So you’re counting “definitional logic” as, basically, a form of logic not based on axiomatic assumptions because the relevant definitions are accepted for the purpose in hand. I’m sorry, an accepted definition is a premise - one must ASSUME such a definition. Definitions are just another axiomatic assertion. If they change, any “underlying logic” or “associations” that you might be trying to get at goes/go out the window.
Whether Solipsism is an issue of ontology or epistemology (or both) has seemingly not been officially decided. I find this compatible with the general lack of understanding on the subject. I regard Solipsism as an issue of epistemology before it is an issue of ontology. Ontological existence can only be definitely attributed upon definite knowledge, which can only be proven through direct experience.
Not at all. Even if we are to accept your “definitional logic” as beyond the need for axiomatic assertion, evidence is the only thing that is self-evident, and Solipsism is necessarily the only doctrine based only on nothing more than direct evidence. Accepting this definition and all the definitions involved in it shows internal consistency and thus falls in line with your requirements for definitional logic in much the same way as we accept the definition for 1, +, = and 2 such that 1+1=2 is true by definition. Yet I’m guessing you would let the latter off the hook but not the former, because you accept the definitions involved in the latter but not the former. This brings me back to how definitions are just axiomatic assertions.
Really. So other than the ultimate requirement for one to be able to perceive in order to both communicate and receive communications, there’s no perception required. I suggest you think this one through.
This entire segment ultimately operates from the acceptance of materialism.
No wonder you fail to grasp Solipsism - this is the number one difficulty that people seem to face in going so.
The materialist instinct is, as soon as they hear something like “perception”, “senses” or “experience”, they revert to the mechanical descriptions of the processes scientifically identified in bodies as “causing” experience. And yet it remains a mystery for materialists to explain how all these mechanics end up as the particular way in which experience “presents itself to us”… This is exactly why it is always merely description and not explanation.
The only thing immediately apparent is experience. The identification of all the different perceived bits and bobs that are perceived do this and that at the same time as we sense is an observation: an EFFECT of our experience. Not the CAUSE. Classic materialist blunder: to mistake effect for cause. There is no cause to experience. I’m going to call it experience now, because even though perception is derived as “taking in”, which is more or less synonymous with experience, you’re understanding perception as the rational processing of sensory information into our experience. Perception should also be an acceptable word, but using my definition is just going to confuse you more.
Chester, you clearly don’t understand what Solipsism is.
Its essence has nothing to do with God or gods, even if you’re just trying to throw an ad hominem here. A Solipsist’s control over anything is just the same as anyone else’s who isn’t a Solipsist, so control has nothing to do with it either.
Please please please get aquainted with the subject and think it through from a non-materialist perspective before you make any more comments.
Not at all so.
In a syllogism, any declared definition is absolute law due to the requirement of communicating the concepts involved. It isn’t up for debate. It is not an assumed common belief. It is a declaration of what a word or concept means during the argument. It cannot change during that argument. It is an issue of the communication process, not truth assessments.
The proposition that a definition might change later is irrelevant in that the definition is automatically re-instated as a part of the total argument as soon as the argument is re-addressed. The definitions are independent of social changes in language usage.
“This definitions are to be applied while this argument is being made.”
“officially decided”???
What the hell is that? … talk about making assumptions.
And epistemology and ontology are declared simultaneously, not one before the other. In Definitional proofs, the epistemology is strictly an issue of the definitions and logic, nothing else is required nor allowed). The ontology is merely the free choice of deciding which entities are to be declared as relevant to the structure of thought. Ontologies are chosen. They are not necessarily directly related to any presumed reality except by choice. Of course, if they turn out to be too frivolous, the entire ontology is scrapped as being useless, much like solipsism.
“Evidence” is “self-evident”???
Emmm… no.
Evidence must be verified.
And how do you verify evidence? - LOGIC.
That is not true, but if it were, that alone would be enough to dismiss it entirely.
Realize that every religion has said that same thing.
I haven’t seen the former presented. And I know that I never will. But you are welcome to attempt it.
Realize that I am watching very closely for definitions and proper logic throughout.
The proposition that solipsism is based upon “direct evidence” is not an acceptable axiom (it wasn’t a “definition”) merely because “direct evidence” is actually an oxymoron to a logician. If you want to define solipsism in a clear fashion, go ahead. I don’t think it necessary, but you decide.
Did that long ago. It is quite easy.
I do not have to perceive a circle to know what one is and clearly know that it is NOT a square that I also have never perceived.
Where is the issue?
Well the point was for you to correct that situation if it is really the case.
I personally have no trouble with such understandings of how that works, but your assessment that “they haven’t explained it”, doesn’t mean anything one way or another.
You’re trying to make your argument void of the requested definitions. Such always leads to endless and pointless obfuscation.
Define the terms that you are using that are relevant to what you are trying to say so that we can make progress.
Right, so we can’t debate or change the law because it’s the law. I thought you were against circular reasoning?
I’m just trying to say that dictionaries seem to refuse to specify whether it’s epistemological or ontological, generally citing both or either/or.
Ontology is the study of being and existence. At the moment I’m still going along with your conflation of existence with that which is “real”.
Instances of evidence are evident because they are evidence… how can you dispute this?
Expanding the derivation of the word from just vision to all senses, if you sense something you sense something. It’s “there”.
How do you need logic for this? All you need logic for is if you want to say anything MORE than this from the evidence.
If I see an apple fall, I see an apple fall. If I want to deduce a property of apples from this, then I need logic. I don’t need logic to say what I see.
Sure, but when a religion like Christianity says it’s basing God on evidence without seeing God, then that’s clearly false.
I’m ACTUALLY saying experience is all you can say about experience. And this is Solipsism. That’s all there is to it. Religions generally expand a little on this.
I’m no authority on formal presentation but:
Direct experience is all you can definitely know.
Solipsism requires that direct experience is all you can definitely know and nothing more or less.
Therefore Solipsism is true.
Any declared definition is absolute law. It isn’t up for debate. Your words. Case closed.
Oh dear. You must have experienced at least one particular circular shape in order to know what a circle is.
In order to know that it is not a square, without experiencing one, you must blindly accept it without experiencing one for sure - that’s not proven knowledge.
Experience alone is proof. Logic is faith.
If you describe phenomena that happen during or immediately before another phenomena, you have merely described two sets of phenomena. You have not proven causation, it is just useful to have faith that one follows the other if it happens consistently enough.
Pretty easily. That word “because” that you used in there… it means “by the cause of”, referring to what brought about the state which in itself wasn’t the state already. “Evidence is evident because it is evidence” or “it’s true because it’s true” is not only tautologically presented, but technically incorrect.
I take it that you didn’t understand the distinction between sensing and perceiving.
You can’t merely sense an apple falling from a tree. You have to deduce from a stream of raw data that the data was the result of the event of an apple falling from a tree. It is entirely a process of logical deduction.
You haven’t offered a definition yet. You might want that definition of a definition.
Do you have a point in all of this somewhere?
You seem to neither know the “self” nor be able to verify it.
Even presuming that you knew the self, how would you verify it?
Lol right. Never enough to just get the meaning across - fine, I’ll rephrase to make it “technically correct”:
“Evidence is evident by virtue of it being evidence”. It’s supposed to be tautological because that’s the only thing that cannot be disputed by logicians (which is precisely why they hate it so much and claim it to be the only logical thing that MUST be disputed, because nothing is added - apparently the primary imperative amongst logicians. If the primary imperative was correctness, they would require tautologies).
Of course I understood your distinction between sensing and perceiving: raw sensory data entering via sensory organs isn’t the only necessary ingredient in the scientific materialist mechanism that leads to perception. There is also the necessary neural step of decoding the data in order for experience to occur.
But my whole tirade against the materialist mistaking of effect for cause was supposed to enlighten you on this fallacious interpretation of experience. The observation and study of this mechanism is an effect of experience. An effect being promoted to “cause” apparently requires that another effect reliably follows or happens simultaneously to it. This is of course subject to the “problem of induction” and thus should not technically be taken as definite truth, but merely useful predictively. Another technical scientific blunder: to mistake utility for truth.
In order to assess such effects, with the intention to induce a “cause” of experience, experience must first occur. Without experience first occuring, there can be no assessment of experience itself and “causes”. Therefore experience precedes knowledge of its “cause”. This does not occur to the materialist, and so they foolishly count cause of experience as necessarily preceding experience - which is of course supposed to be the case according to their enshrined linear timeline model of reality, which mistakenly assumes existence independent of any experience of it. Another instance of the mistaking of effect for cause.
There’s my definition. According to your quoted definition of definition, it is a formal and concise statement of the meaning of the word, it is my act of defining the word Solipsism, it specifies the essential properties of it and the criteria that uniquely identify it clearly and definitely.
You’ll probably object to my phrasing of if as what Solipsism requires rather than what Solipsism is defined as. In this case I will draw your attention to one of my previous definitions of it: “Solipsism is necessarily the only doctrine based only on nothing more than direct evidence” - though I will replace evidence with experience in light of your attempt to conflate such a claim with religious claims:
“Solipsism is necessarily the only doctrine based only on nothing more than direct experience.” Happy yet?
Not even close to “Happy”, as in satisfied with your responses.
Cutting through the many objections to the other things you have stated just to get more to the point, you are right, that I would at least object to the use of “requires” within a definition, but it goes far beyond that.
The word and concept of “Solipsism” is already defined, as the dictionary states. Your continued effort to alter that definition seems pointless except that you seem to think by such alterations, you inherently prove Solipsism to be irrefutable, “unavoidably self-evident”. But your alterations seem to always include something that isn’t actually a part of the defined concept, but rather a presumption you have made concerning it. This most recent is, “Solipsism is necessarily the only doctrine…”.
Merely the use of the word “necessarily” implies a logical conclusion. Even if it did qualify as a definition, where was the logic associated with that conclusion? But I am not really interested in such rationale because it is a bit off the mark anyway in that a definition for “Solipsism” isn’t what is needed. What is needed is the proper definitions for the words and concepts being used within the already existing definition, specifically, as mentioned earlier, “to know” and “verifying”. And within your own offered re-definition using the word experience, that too needs clarification. If you are going to use the concept of experience, then define what you really mean by it in an unambiguous way.
It is within those details that the flaws are brought to light if they exist. Proclamations of truth are meaningless when ambiguous words are used. And is misleading when those words are not carefully examined as to their real meaning.
That is the issue.
How do you “know” the “Self” and how do you “Verify” the “Self”?
How do you conclude that the “Self is the ONLY thing that can be known”?
Again, thank you very much for your response and your involvement in this thread. I will come back with some questions, comments and answers later, but now choosing to just generally comment on the subject.
The basic thesis is that there is an experience (an existence) that is experienced as a life in a world and that it in this life happens a lot of things which in total amount (regardless of otological status) constitute the subject’s phenomenology. Then we come to the tricky. Is this phenomenon (the phenomenal) the only thing that exists (the world in itself), or does it exist other phenomenological experiences outside youre one? If the answer is yes to that question then solipsism false, if the answer is no to that question is solipsism true. Here we have noted that there appears to be no metaphysical, epistemological, empirical or logical method to investigate this, so the only thing we can do is to take faith in how we understand the world - what feels right. It will then become the tools with which to refute solipsism. We can’t know if this tool is good in an otological sense, but it works fine from a pragmatic perspective. Just see this thought experiment as a basis for abstract philosophical discussions, where the purpose is to learn more about each other’s thinking and not to forget - of course having fun along the way. It then becomes in some sense a kind of pragmatic theoretical philosophy.
A rush to judgment.
You have merely watch the typical simple-minded argumentation.
The actual “metaphysical method” has not yet been discussed… due to such argumentation… a very common attribute in society.
Ok so you want to bring things back to the dictionary definition. That’s fine. I can show you how I got from the dictionary definition to my “re-definition” as you call it.
“The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified”.
First, I want to clarify this definition in light of its derivation, from the Latin solus + ipse + ism. Taking these 3 elements in reverse order to make the most grammatical sense in English, Solipsism is the doctrine (ism) of the self (ipse) alone (solus). To expand on the word “alone”, we can see two words combined: “all” and “one”. From derivation, the “self” in Solipsism, is all and one (terribly Buddhist, I know and apologise). With the self taken as all and one, it is synonymous with “everything” or “existence”.
Second, we can now understand from the definition “the self is the only thing that can be known and verified” that everything is the one thing that can be known and verified. But this is alarmingly close to what anyone would believe, whether Solipsist or not.
Third, in order to distinguish Solipsism from non-Solipsism now that they seem so similar, we have to bear in mind that Solipsism is a reaction to Materialism, which of course holds that the self is NOT all and one. The self in Materialism is the subject that experiences the objects of existence. From this start-point, Solipsism rejects the separation between the two, ending up with the self alone. Perversely perhaps this is the consequence of the realisation that the subject does not exist. A supposed subject can only ever perceive an object. When it tries to perceive itself, it is likewise perceiving itself as an object, and one realises that ONLY objects are ever witnessed, and never subjects. One cannot know anything about someone that necessarily cannot be witnessed, and if something is categorically impossible to know anything about, it cannot be said to exist. Objects likewise lose their meaning, relative to non-objects (subjects), and become synonymous with “everything”. The “self” as “all and one” is breaking down of the divide between the two.
Hopefully this gives the Solipsist “self” a little more context, and it should follow that since it is self-evident that “existence” or “everything” is the only thing that can be known and verified (one cannot know or verify anything about non-existence), it is self-evident that “the self alone” is the only thing that can be known and verified.
Now onto “Solipsism is necessarily the only doctrine based only on nothing more than direct experience.”
Solipsism as “The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified” is the only theory that proposes this. Anything identical is the same thing, hence theories that say the same thing are Solipsism, hence the words “necessarily the only”. It is a doctrine. And the rest is Empiricism.
I have more faith in Empiricism when it comes to Epistemology, because a valid and sound logical conclusion can turn out to be inconsistent with experience due to flaws in premises or problems inherent to processes like induction (e.g. just because something happens every time so far, it does not necessitate that it always will). A logical conclusion must always be tested against experience in order to be verified. Otherwise if we conclude that experience is wrong because logic must be right, then we get further and further away from reality. This fidelity to direct experience (commonly implied by the phrase “seeing is believing”) is combined with the Solipsist notion of the “self”, and we end up with Solipsism.
Above is my stance on Solipsism. You will note that I also resort to faith (in Empiricism), which feels right to me. There is no objective or universal or true standard on which to base the correctness of any faith, though I find what feels right to me is that which makes most sense after a proper analysis of metaphysical issues. I believe those who have different faith have different values than making the most sense, such as the social faith in what others say: the incompatibility between what you experience and what other people claim to experience is the source of the main instinctive repulsion to Solipsism. Though I respect the faith in the utility of giving the high importance to what other people say! I just prefer demoting this in favour of analytical depth and uncompromising sense. Your stance will reveal where your own values lie (which could be in a completely different place to either of the above places).
I think I understand it better than you, nor am I a materialist.
A solipsist believes he is the only consciousness, ie, a disempowered god. By God we mean (amongst other things) the highest conscious being…which iyo is you.
I believe that I exist within a consciousness that extends beyond my own…so I am an idealist that believes in stuff beyond myself.
All that can be rationally understood from that definition is what the word means (void of more detail).
The truth of the theory appears to be utter non-sense.
Far from it.
A) Materialism is far from being the only alternative. I am certainly not a Materialist nor a Solipsist.
B) “if something is categorically impossible to know anything about, it cannot be said to exist”, then the self cannot be said to exist. Doesn’t that disturb the theory more than a little?
A vacuous assertion without support or foundation.
I suspect that is all due to a serious lack of understanding regarding logic.
Well, if the Buddhist doesn’t speak English (or Logic), it is a bit pointless to attempt to debate the merits of Buddhism with him.
Lol really. And what gives you that idea? Perhaps you’ve not read my last post.
I still don’t get why you want to bring the concept of God into Solipsism. As I said, the essence of Solipsism has nothing to do with God. If God HAD to be something, then even the Solipsist would not have to equate Him with the self. God, partly meant as an omnipotent being for example (since you bring up the notion of a “disempowered” god), would perhaps be more applicable to only PART of the self - the part/parts that felt under control. God could even be applicable to the parts of the self that didn’t feel under control - if lack of the feeling of control was taken as control originating from a different part of the self that you didn’t feel. So all we can establish is that IF God had to be something to a Solipsist, it could be the whole self, or any part of the self, though not necessarily either. But He doesn’t. So bringing up God as something the Solipsist necessarily believes he is is just wrong. Even aside from this, qualifying God as disempowered implies that like the Christian God, one of his attributes is normally omnipotence or at least powerfulness, so putting disempowered together with omnipotence or powerful makes what you’re saying even more obviously wrong.
Lovely. And how do you know that this “stuff” beyond yourself exists?
Meaningful existence is defined by the property of affect.
For something to be meaningfully said to exist, that something must have the property of affect.
To affect means to alter or change something.
Thus the property of affect requires an affecter and also an affected.
Thus for anything to exist, there must be at least two entities, “affecter and affected”.
The proposal that “existence is merely a single entity (ie “self”)” voids the very definition of existence.
And thus the statement itself is an irrational, meaningless composition, an “oxymoron”.
Then what are you?
I only assumed you were a materialist because one of your arguments was based on the material mechanism of sensation being transformed into perception, everything you say is compatible with Materialism and you had not until just now said that you were not a materialist (or anything). I’m well aware that there are more doctrines out there than just Solipsism and Materialism.
The self is the entirety of existence, which is a property only attributed to that which is known through direct experience. It’s the sum of all of this, rather than a separate container that has its own existence. So no, no disturbance.
Yes, you don’t like things just being undeniably obvious, I get it. I’m curious as to how you don’t think what you experience obviously just is what you experience. I don’t have to logically prove that I don’t experience what I don’t experience, because I just DON’T experience it! It’s that simple. It can only be what I do experience that any knowledge and verification is based on (I don’t have access to anything else) - and remember my definition of knowledge as of only that which is directly experienced, and verification is direct experience. Given this (which I already gave) it is self-evident that “the self alone” is the only thing that can be known and verified.
I suspect that all your arguments are due to a serious distrust of the senses as the ultimate authority. I know you have a big thing for reason, seemingly above all else, which I cannot fathom since reason is impossible without anything experienced by the senses to apply it to…
Maybe it’s about time you had a go.
Prove Solipsism does not exist in YOUR language. Maybe you can also prove the existence of experience too, by using only logic without anything that must have been sensed and experienced at some point first. Or even that you can experience other people’s experiences without relying on your own experience to do so?
ADDENDUM (you posted again before I submitted):
This: “Thus the property of affect requires an affecter and also an affected.”
does not necessarily follow from this: “To affect means to alter or change something.” (even taking account the things you said before that).