Sartre’s refutation spelled it out more clearly than other examples of human experience might have. This is not to say that another experience of ‘a solipsist’ would not have demonstrated Sartre’s argument. Many experiences might show us that we are not alone. But there is a problem here. If I argue that the solipsist cannot count himself as ‘one’, (whatever ‘one’ that is, it matters not, as long as it has been counted), then how can I count myself as ‘one’ and others as two or more? Am I counting bodies? Sartre’s refutation works on the idea of the ‘one’ of the solipsist as being the ‘one’ that is commonly presented as 'whole or togetherness.
So I would say that Sartres argument was misdirected in that it refuted wholeness and togetherness and not solipsism.
okay lets go back to the original point of yours then, the argument i’m putting forth is that it is this “distinguishing” that is the illusion that solipsism is intuitive of…
The solipsist says ‘I am the only one’. My question is, ‘the only one what?’
This is also a point about the philosophy of counting…counting can only take place where there are differences. How does the solpisist count his ‘one’?
JJ
Every mind strives to create its own perfect universe.
The laws of that universe are solely governed by the perception of the mind.
These laws can be altered if the perception is altered.
5)“Reality” is generated from the combined perceptions of all entangled minds.
The last one is the most alluring to me.
It’s a combination of many philosophies: Investigated Hypnosis, the Placebo Effect, Super String and M-Brane Theories, The Many Worlds theory, Voodoo, etcetera.
I really don’t feel like explaining it fully in-depth, but if you want to research it on your own, I’d love to hear what you think.
Greetings Righteously Insane
Welcome to my Insanity!!
I do!
A new article on my web site which goes deeper into #5:“Reality” is generated from the combined perceptions of all entangled minds.
“One is all, and all are One!”
The problem of Individuality in a One Consciousness Singularity.
Why are there individual minds or egos? How did a Singularity of One Consciousness evolve to be composed of the Many?
I gave this question considerable thought after I traced all of existence back to the First Container: The Singularity. If we start out with “A” Singularity, how did we acquire our individual egos? It gave me some pause until I realized I was attempting to conceptualize The Infinite and Unbound Singularity as a finite spacetime object. There is no correlation between The Singularity and anything that exists within our perceptions of Universe.
It was while contemplating its Unbound nature that lead me to finally comprehend the infinite degrees of freedom of The Singularity.
It was one of those “Duh!” moments when you realize the answer has been staring you right in the face all along. The Singularity was never “A” Singularity. It is not an Object, it has always been Infinite and “Unbound”!
The Singularity has always been a Multiplicity. We are the Infinite degrees of freedom of The Singularity.
To understand this a little better lets consider our spacetime Universe. We say we have height, depth, width, and time. We call them Dimensions but this is a misnomer. There is only one “Dimension;” the Universe, but it has four “degrees of freedom” to exist in. Actually, the last time I checked, the Theorist tell us our Universe has 11 degrees of freedom, but we are only aware of the four.
If they have not done so, I would add consciousness to the list of degrees of freedom of our Universe. We often overlook the very tool we use to study it with.
If we conjure up a mental image of our Universe we can start with a point and then expand that point to include all the degrees of freedom we can mentally envision. In this way we can ‘see’ there is but one “dimension”: the point we started with, but for that dimension to exist as we know it, we have to allow it the ‘degrees of freedom’ it requires.
When viewed this way it becomes apparent there is only one dimension of Universe, but it needs to have all its degrees of freedom for it to exist.
Remove any one of these degrees of freedom and the Universe would not exist at all, and if the Universe does not exist, none of the other degrees of freedom could exist. Our Universe is dependent on all of them entangling together to give our Reality the freedom it requires to exist.
It is the same for what we call our minds, our individuality. It is because of the way we view Consciousness that leads to our confusion. We only perceive the ‘dimension’ of consciousness we are aware of; our own. We view it the same way we view any one of the spacetime ‘degrees of freedom’ when we call it ‘a dimension.’ It is not a separate entity existing by itself. It cannot exist in isolation just as Height cannot exist in isolation.
Without all other degrees of freedom entangled together, any single one in isolation has no existence. We can perceive it separately, but it cannot exist separately.
Our minds and not separate entities existing isolated from all others. Just as Height cannot exist without all the other degrees of freedom, a single mind cannot exist without all other minds entangling to give the One Consciousness the Infinite degrees of freedom it requires to exist.
There is only One Consciousness, but with infinite degrees of Freedom. Our minds are the degrees of freedom of The One Consciousness.
That is why I say we are not ‘part’ of The Singularity, and we are no ‘in’ The Singularity. We are the Infinite degrees of freedom of The Singularity. We are the Consciousness of The Singularity, and The Singularity is our Consciousness.
We are The Singularity.
As I recall Maynard James Keenan saying: “Today a young man asked and realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness sharing itself, subsequently, there is no such thing as death, life is just a dream that resides in the imagination of ourselves - fear is gone with the weather.”
Or something along those lines…I am sure I do not have all the words correct in that, yet still, that is not the point, which is clearly evident.
