/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>3260

A genealogy of yourself should be all you need. If you're stupid enough to buy into solipsism it is only because you're stupid enough to believe you somehow knowingly and unknowingly made yourself and the whole world you're in, yet not seeing that realizing this still doesn't confer you any power and hence is just a stupid mind game you're playing with yourself to not get shit done.

>>3320

>not wooing her by living a modest and virtuous life

wew lad.

Kant furnishes a tentative empirical proof of the existence of external objects by arguing that, since time and space aren't perceptible by themselves but only by their content, and yet we perceive inner change, there must be an unchanging external component from which we derive this perception by comparison.

In my opinion, his proof isn't that convincing because the solipsism rises precisely from the ill-defined demarcation between inner and outer phenomena. If appearances aren't trusted, such that any and everything that happens might be an illusion, then there's nothing stopping me from equivocating "I" and "the world". On the other hand, by undermining all things in such a extreme way, I don't see what either "I" or "the world" would mean. Whatever I call by this words would never appear to me in experience, otherwise it would either be an illusion, or indistinguishable from an illusion.

So to me it's a meaningless question. It can't be proved or disproved. But I believe, from the history of philosophy, that it's possible that some description of the world might be created such that there's nothing but "I" (Fichte's idealism) or "world" (Iron Age philosophy and mysticism, Schopenhauer's idealism).

>>3260

Off topic, but related to OP's image. How many of you here think it's completely true that her boyfriend of a few years ago is the one that pushed her into doing porn which she never really wanted to do? Everyone thought the pic was a joke, how could a porn star that did so many demeaning shoots like hers have any serious thought in her head? Anyone think philosophy might have been a big impetus for her to get out of porn?

>>3355

I think it's the opposite

She tried to get into philosophy after quitting porn

>>3355

Oh, that's someone I was supposed to know?

Besides, doing demeaning stuff does not an idiot make.

>>3260

>implying it's falsifiable

I can't believe every body is slinging this good shit, you can not disprove solipsism with logic, that it's self could be a product of the observer.

>>3260

It's kind of like...

A solipsist will believe that they are the only conscious being, that they are the only one whose mind truly exists, but that assertion is just as baseless as the assertion of God.

If we're speaking PROOF, then you should always try to prove a positive, rather than proving a negative.

The invalidity and inapplicability requires a greater burden of proof than the validity and applicability.

Other than that, there's no real way of disproving that you're the only conscious being because it's like the matrix theory, for every piece of evidence presented, you could just say "but that would be a part of the matrix, some false evidence coded into the matrix to trick me and make it feel real".

>>3260

I was thinking about this earlier today for fun

Solipsism seems to come from Cartesian Cogito, not how >>3332 sees it, or some "ill-defined demarcation between inner and outer phenomena" or whatever whatever. None of that additional content is needed for solipsism, all is needed is doubt, and the Cartesian standard of proof.

If, as I see it, solipsism comes from this doubt and the Cartesian standard of proof for the existence of reality, then there are some obvious attack vectors. Attacking the Cogito(which has been done), attacking the standard of evidence for the existence of reality(which isn't done enough), and some other lesser ways.

Definitions: I take the Cogito to mean "I think therefore I am"

I take "Cartesian standard of doubt" to mean that if something can be doubted at all, then you can "withhold determination" regarding the existence of whatever the subject is. Example: If I can doubt apples, then I "withhold my determination of its existence"

I take Solipsism to mean the idea that only our minds cannot be doubted, and the existence of other minds can. In effect "only I exist".

Recap: Solipsism = false if Cogito == false or CartesianStandard == false

So I've been thinking about this, right?

You can't disprove solipsism, but maybe there's a way to attack a big motivation for why people would believe it. The idea that your mind is the only thing in existence, and that you're imagining everything else in the world, has a satisfying unification to it. There is only one thing in the universe: your mind. People like believing everything can be boiled down to one thing.

But, like, if part of your mind is consciously aware of your thoughts, and another part of your mind is sending imaginary information

to the other side and creating a hallucination of reality, what you effectively have is two minds, you and the thing making up information. I mean, you can call it a part of your mind, but honestly if it's disconnected from your thoughts to such an extent and has to run calculations apart from your mind in order to form a false reality, it's basically a separate entity. So now we have two things in the universe: you and the Cartesian demon. That's not nearly as satisfying as only your mind existing.

So in summary, solipsism requires part of your mind to act so separately from your consciousness that basically it's not only your mind existing.

>>3260

you are not everlasting

therefore something must have caused you

therefore something else must exist to cause you

therefore solipsism is false

fault me

>>3486

Who says that the rules of logic exist before, or after me?

>>3488

that depends on whether logic depends on you for its existence, which would make logic arbitrary

>>3486

there is a fault between premises 2 & 3

what if you caused yourself?

>>3499

because you were not existing for you to be able to cause yourself

something cannot come from nothing

>>3378

You can however point out contradiction in the theory as a skeptic would. I'm trying but my brains dead for now, just woke up. Whether it's convincing to the subject or not is irrelevant though. You can't ever be sure you'll convince a subject of anything anyway.

>>3439

/thread

Unless someone can improve it.

>>3503

>something cannot come from nothing

How do you know?

>>3439

If there's no distinction between inner and outer phenomena, then there's no "I" and there are no objects. There's only "something", which cannot be doubted to exist, because the "doubt" is something, and exists.

Another way to put it: solipsism is either the belief that only my mind and thoughts exists, or that external objects do not exist. You see now what is meant by "inner" and "outer"?

But both the dichotomy between me and the world and the doubt relating to it are necessary for solipsism.

>>3429

It's particularly infuriating that the book places such importance in Dostoevsky and Satre

>>3528

Is that not a logical impossibility?

>>3665

Since when did logic place demands on reality? Law of identity isn't a thing in quantum physics for instance.

>>3669

Aren't you now suggesting that logic is arbitrary and completely useless?

https://twitter.com/Ishkur23/status/706086561624887296

>>3378

Good points.

>>3710

This where the debate usually ends up. Solipsism deifies the logic you supposedly created, along with the rest of the universe.

>>3355

>>3429

Sasha was intelligent in the arena of self promotion. Not Like Jameson of course, but in that Grey pulled the art world trick of playing pretentious outsider to convince gallery shoppers that crap is worth buying. I recall many times she claimed that when she shouted stuff like "fuck me harder motherfucker" it was like, totes meta feminist deconstructionism.

She absolutely wanted to start in porn as a means to bigger things. Sadly she wasn't actually smart, talented or wise enough to reach her goals. Soderberg did cast her, but it was for an emotionally cold, vapid whore.

Meanwhile Asia Carrera was a legit genius who didn't demand attention for it or shit on her own industry while working in it.

(Yes I am also infuriated. Sorry.)

>>3792

but solipsism is based upon that logic

if solipsism disregards that logic, then why cant the idea that solipsism is false be equally valid?

>>3812

It would equally invalid as well.

My thought is that the existence of an external reality requires fewer assumptions, or is at least less contrived, than the idea of solipsism.

Wouldn't it be very peculiar for the universe to be such that precisely one and only one self-conscious subject exists?

Wouldn't it be even stranger, if we allow for the above, that that subject would be the sort of creature that needs to believe that s/he is not alone?

>>3792

Interesting stuff about Sasha Grey. Seems she's doing alright for herself despite her failed acting career. I looked up Asia Carrera, high IQ but not a genius (genius is an event for me).

>>3829

Solipsism is a form of incomplete, but near complete, skepticism. It requires less (abstract) assumptions than external realism since all it requires is I=I. Full Skepticism is just denial of everything's reality, truth, and value.

Your bit about being a being that feels a need for another, that's basically a way of getting at a genealogy of that kind of being.

>>3792

Sasha isn't that smart, she just likes to edit her wikipedia article so it says she's smart.

https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Sasha_Grey

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?