/philosophy/ - Philosophy

http://www.sfgate.com/living/article/Leaving-Porn-On-Her-Terms-Violet-Blue-Former-2527496.php

Jennie Ketcham has a more interesting story. She's not an idiot.

Look at your wall. Try to force it to be a different color with your mind.

Can't do it? Okay, clearly something resists your will, ergo parts of this existence are external to you.

>>4008

Stop ruining our thread about a mediocre former pornstar with your babby tier logic.

>>4009

Stop acting like some philosophical stonewall who has any right to speak with authority

>>4011

>rights

>authority

Christ, you're not just spooked. You're straight up possessed, son.

We must fight the white supremacist capitalist cisheteropatriarchy!

>>4008

This would assume that the will is the only part of the self, which the would-be solipsist wouldn't have to accept.

>>4019

I'll give you some tips to actually believably, and humourously, impersonate and tarnish my name since I don't use trips.

1) sage your shitpost, I always do.

2) say something to do with dialectics, Hegel, or Marxist theory. The more jargon, the better hidden is the vacuousness of your post.

3) insult retards like yourself by demeaning their status with words like "son, boy, spooked" etc

4) ¿...?

5) PROFIT

but there are also thread ids, so you should maybe just insult me directly instead of being a giant retard.

>>4039

Being ^this retarded does not do you favors either, bruv. Mayhaps you should pull out ye old English, ye old fethered quill, and ye old shit-canned ink squirted from the abyss of the evolved tumor-like sack in your brain from which your thinking flows.

Maybe then you'll make me at least giggle, m8.

Kill the white oppressors!

Can you prove the world was not created last Tuesday?

If all things I experience are merely illusions created by my own mind, then what an illusion it is! I don't care if the world was or wasn't created from my own mind; I, as a philosopher, will study it anyways.

>>3260

I would but...

MRI scans and experimental brain sensors are really expensive

>>4139

You can't disprove it empirically. How do you prove MRIs and brain sensors are objectively out there?

>>4141

insert metal plate in dipshits skull

dare dipshit to "imagine" his skull being ripped apart 3 times or so

grab another dipshit, make him think theres a plate in his head, do the same thing

record results

>>3792

>mensa member this booty blasted

>posting a pic of a pornstar

>cumdumpster

>>3503

Epstimeological Ultilitarians unironically would disagree with the last one, but most of them belong in a meat grinder so...

>>4014

what decides you're not crazy and they are? that's a spook in itself

>>4019

feminists are too fat to fight anyone

>>3260

I would, but I'm not sure any of you actually exist.

Since I'm not sure of anyone existing outside of myself, I will master myself and hope the rest of the universe falls in line.

>>3486

>you are not everlasting

How do you know? Maybe I will last forever. Maybe I have been here forever, and the perception of having been born is just a trick I played on myself?

>therefore something must have caused you

Cause and effect are extrapolated from everyday experience. This does not establish conclusively that every event must have a cause. Even if I had a beginning, I could've arisen spontaneously, without any cause.

>>5780

>It's evil, therefore it's false.

That's why murder doesn't happen either.

>>5795

Who's thinking?

>>3260

>Teleports behind you

>Kicks you in the shin

>"I refute it thus"

>"Nothing personnel Berkeley"

>>3822

And thus we can determine that solipsism is a useless ontological model with no descriptive power.

Believing in it is the same thing as an admission of ignorance about the external structure of reality, and a desire to believe in whatever form you personally prefer.

>>4020

Which is laughable. If the self can be separate and opposed or ignorant from the self then the self is a useless construct in this context with no discernable meaning.

>>5795

You make a good overall observation, but in your conclusion lose the single most important element to Descartes' statement: Its simplicity.

Your mind could be an illusion, your apparent will nonexistent. But can it be proven in the absence of any minds to comprehend it? Should no minds exists, there cannot even be a perception of the passage of time. Was the wait to be born unbearable? There was no cognition, thus no perception at all. Any mind, even a "false" one, has to exist with some degree of physicality. This can be traditionally perceived physicality in a single unchallenged universe, or be an advanced computer, a Boltzmann brain, or a being's mind. As an aside, consider that a computer capable of perfectly simulating the (or simply a) universe is arguably indistinguishable from putting a box around the universe.

If a being is conceiving me as an idea, I exist. Within his mind, various processes run "me". I am describable by those processes, and more importantly by the abstract concept of "me" that now exists on its own.

If a simulating-computer or Boltzmann brain is running me, I do exist very much physically. One could take my awareness transpose it to the "higher" reality in which the brain/processor exists, which can be as simple as establishing outside contact.

There are incalculable variations, and they add so much complexity. Yet so simple a statement as "I think therefore I am" fundamentally PROVES existence, as well as the a degree of free will. You can will your body to move, you can perceive, you can think and conceive in this instant. And if you cannot, if there is no will, it is impossible to perceive it. And with even the highest degree of infinitely-recursive universes and simulations and imaginations, that your data exists in any form, that information at all exists, this is enough. In thinking, one exists. If the struggles are false, they are false, but then you have no more ability to believe or disbelieve than nothingness itself. Perceptions can be illusory, but fundamental existence of the mind in some form is not, and is uniquely provable solely in existing.

Seize the moment or fade back into non-being. You'll only be able to question your ability to think in one state.

>>3260

You'd have to prove it first.

Is this old hippie rhetoric of "i am you, and you are me because we are all fragmentations of god's mind blah blah blah i am actually god" a form of solipsism?

Solipsism is real. That's why threads end as soon as I post in them.

The entire point of solipsism is that it

Can't

be disproved retard.

>>5899

No.

I am God.

"self implies other"

- Alan Watts

If no one else existed then everything you encounter must be imagined by you. But how can you imagine shit you're not smart enough to understand?

>>6076

Inborn knowledge, I am God (see >>5910)

>>6082

No, I am.

>>5910 (You)

>>6076 (You)

>>6082 (You)

>>6083 (You)

No.

We are god.

t. Me myself and my proxies.

Lack of utility.

By adhering to solipsism you gain nothing by being correct, and lose everything by being wrong.

At least take a stance of utility, such as

>I am a biological creature and should eat and reproduce

>Ethics are of prime importance and I should behave properly

>Pain is of utmost importance and should be avoided

>Beauty is of utmost importance and should be fostered

To really do that you'd need to disprove the laws of thermodynamics lmao.

Statistically, Solipsistic beings should be everywhere. They probably aren't though.

>>6145

>They probably aren't though.

But anon, that's just what a boltzman brain would say!

>>5875

Personally I think that the whole chain of argument relies too heavily on preexisting notions of reality. Sort of like the whole "white raven" counter-intuitive. If we consider the problem of radical doubt from a position of total ignorance then it would also seem there could be alternative explanations which do not invoke an idea of a substantive self, or of self processes such as thinking.

For instance (and please forgive me if this seems quite stupid I have no training in philosophy or logic) let us first not assume that whatever constitutes your Being necessarily involves anything we may believe it does. Thinking for one requires accepting more than a few other fundamental beliefs about the nature of things and Being. I your post you talk about thinking as something that occurs due to physical processes, which can occur thanks to time. However these concepts can be attacked to some degree. Time for instance, does Being actually necessitate time (or the appearance of time)? The gut reaction would be to say yes, but I am not entirely sure this is warranted. The way we believe we have of Being necessitates time it is true, but I believe I can conceive of a timeless sort of being. Imagine say if there was just a feeling or an impression of thought, of action, of movement, without any of it actually taking place. Or say consider that there may be non-physical things which give rise to the full experience of Being independent of thought, a "phenomenological spirit" if you will. These are just some poor examples which spring to my mind, I'm sure there are better reasoned and backed up arguments out there, and more still that one may not even be able to conceive of.

Again sorry if that sounds stupid, I am admittedly not all that bright. All I am really trying to say that once I well and truly doubted, and started to think of the huge space of unknown unknowns, I found myself unconvinced with the wording. My own formulation, vague and wishy-washy as it may be, would be "There is an impression, therefore something is". I can't find myself ceding that any of this, including myself, must be, only that at least one thing is.

>>3261

He said disprove solipsism, not call it stupid, idiot.

I think this is all you need

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzRip7cAaHM

>>3260

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7DmA3yWwa6AT5jFXt/zombies-redacted

>>3260

No. The entire multiverse is one large interconnected system. So it's not so much that "I am the multiverse" as much as "the idea of a separate individual was factually incorrect to begin with and a bad assumption".

Next.

>>6253

>factually incorrect

Calling something "factual" doesn't make it "factual," you fucking idiot.

>Next.

You haven't said anything meaningful enough to warrant the arrogance necessary for the full stop at the end of a non-sentence. Kill yourself.

1. If solipsism were true, you wouldn't be subject to the world.

2. You are subject to the world.

3. Therefore, solipsism is false.

You're welcome. Now the absurdist idiot can come along and show us how validity doesn't real. Any honest contention should spend equal effort discerning how this is sound as not.

>>6429

>You are subject to the world.

How so?