Solipsism syndrome, if the self creates the world who is responsible for the problem of evil?
Immortalist
mind can be known to exist, or, sometimes, the position that nothing
outside one's own mind does exist. Solipsism syndrome is, by
extension, the overwhelming feeling that nothing is real, that all is
a dream. Sufferers become lonely and detached from the world and
eventually become completely indifferent.
If the self is the only existing reality and all other reality,
including the external world and other persons, are representations of
that self having no independent existence and only one's own sensory
data and mental contents can be the basis for knowledge, and the self
creates all things in the percieved world, then why would the self
create an imperfect world with evil in it?
Why would a solipsist create things such as pain and loss for himself
or herself? More generally, it might be asked "If the world is
completely in my head, how come I don't live the most fantastic life
imaginable?"
1. One response would be to simply plead ignorance and note that there
may be some reason which was forgotten on purpose. Perhaps this is all
out of a desire to avoid being bored, or perhaps even that the
solipsist is in fact living the most perfect life he or she could
imagine.
2. Another response is that categories such as 'pain' are perceptions
assumed with all of the other socio-cultural human values that the
solipsist has created for himself — a package deal, so to speak.
3. A third response is to say that, like a dream, the solipsist's
subconscious mind creates a world which the solipsist's conscious mind
might not have chosen but has no control over changing
This issue is somewhat related to theodicy, the "problem of evil",
except that the solipsist himself is the all-powerful God who has
somehow allowed imperfection into his world. A solipsist may also
counter that since he never made himself he never had a choice in the
way his mind operates and appears to have only limited control over
how his experiences evolve. He could also conclude that the world of
his own mind's creation is the exact total of all his desires,
conscious and otherwise and that each moment is always perfect in the
sense that it would not be other than as his own mind in total had
made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/
Sir Frederick Martin
Genetic constraints.
Brain structures and functions constraints.
Virtual reality considered as reality.
Hubris in a meaningless situation.
Pissant putative 'Gods', and 'God' stories.
What is 'evil'? What is 'self'?
livvy
What's your point? You're a juvenile, and have great cut and paste
skills? Grown ups, in serious class environments, read religion
and philosophy. Nothing new here....just a "oh look at me, I have
search". Yeah, and you found something to suit your needs. Who
can't do that? Get over yourself, study, find your own thing.
tooly
Interesting ther Immort...but how about this angle, from a real
insanity I experienced [and still haven't recovered from completely,
probably never will]. It went something like this.
None of this existed before I was born. None of this will exist when
I die. Therefore, I must be the object of it's intention.
That seemed silly. Until I tried to fathom the idea of infinite time
and BEing. In such a realm, being things like ominipotent and all
powerful would probably get boring pretty quickly. Ergo...a conundrum
of BEing...HOW TO KEEP THE EXPERIENCE VITAL, NEW, while still holding
the risks for bad experience to some accepable minimum.
Without going into a lot of argument here, I surmised that, in such an
infinite BEing, most all things would have been tried 'already',
whereupon, the present state of things [ME] is probably some aggregate
summation of what is most feasible to overcome certain obstacles in
such infinite being. Ergo, things like Birth, death, and even the
idea of a 'new life' [memory, experiences, brain storage, the whole
ball of wax as we know life here on this planet]...all become
'justifed' as a kind of 'best of all possible worlds' [given the
pitfalls that have probably been encountered through the eons of time
and universes].
Thusly, in my solipsism, this was all a giant machine [this universe,
all the people in it, life, everything]...all set up like a humongous
program [or the dream that you allude to perhaps] beforehand and set
in 'automatic' [so to speak]...whereupon, I would then be constructed
over and over and over...with new birth and death, each life being a
kind of 'degoussing' of the tape that it might be start a new
recording for sake of keeping 'experience' vital [staving off that
boredom and emptiness otherwise encountered in more expansive
ominoptent conscious existence].
So, in this little setup, I became my own God, but 'erased' from my
memory [as a new birth] to EXPERIENCE life.
Some conundrums of logic remainded of course. For example, if once
God, but having given up such mantle to become 'mortal', does that
mean I was no longer God? Surely, while alive as a mortal, I have no
exceptional powers or control. I am, by all observances, a simple
singular individuals amongst billions. And yet, all this started ONLY
when I was born into consciousness...and it will go away ONLY when I
am no longer conscious of it. True, my intellect conjoles at me, that
this all existed before and after my birth and death...but it does not
convince me.
This, again, all seems silly I'm sure. But understand, there was a
time it was all 'real' to me...and it scared the crap out of me. If
nothing else, I saw another flaw in mortal being through this
experience, that the very very very ultimate LAST thing you want to be
is GOD. Realize, that means RESPONSIBILITY...not just power. Or as
Truman said, 'the buck stops here'...and I could not resist HELL [it's
reality, which rose up all around me rooted to my fear]. Wow...scares
me even now decades later to even think about it. But HELL was not
fire and brimstone [at least not as a mortal, while alive], but an
alienation that I cannot even begin to explain to someone else. No
one knows what aloneness really is I think...not in it's abject
reality. It made me realize that perhaps, if I am God, and I created
all this [and then erased it from my memory by being born as a
mortal]...the ultimate reason may have been to escape the very HELL
that I was uncovering, to regain my total isolation of BEing that even
though may stretch as far as the mind can imagine, it remained a field
of total abandonment...bleak, alone, and open to Fear of the highest
order. It all made me appreciate the very existence of 'someone
else'...'anyone else' in this world and universe as something very
precious indeed. Look to the guy or gal next to you, and realize,
they may be all that is saving you from real 'HELL' [as a flaw of
conscious BEing].
Anyway, a short synopsis of my bout with solipsism. I still have
lapses; there are things going on I can't quite explain. I realize
it's all [me, all of it] probably just an emanation of a brain,
confused about ego and what it is. There was an emotional component
too, found in my conjuring of Christ [as I understood the story and
essence of Christ's BEing which I kind of 'channeled' through my
self...which much success I believe. I feel I understood something;
not the mysticism, but the truth of the BEing as Christ represented.
Ah, but how does one get around the biblical storyline?
I just woke up here and have no idea what it is all about really. It
is all a guess no matter what I think. I'm 60 now and closer to the
end. I wonder if we ever get to know for certain? I'm somewhere in
the middle of what is called space, on an object they call a planet,
given the name earth. I have no idea where that is, why it is, or why
I am in it.
Giga2
"tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:862a908c-3300-487b...@x11g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
=I have had similar fears before regarding solipcism. At the end of the day
I'm not sure there is a very strong rational argument against it. The best I
have coe up with is; even if it were true why bother finding that out.
Better to be deluded in this case IMO even if it were true, and it probably
isn't.
bigfl...@gmail.com
You say 'mind', but if you expand you reference (even for hypothetical
reasons) to 'self'' (the body and mind being components), then you can
at least speculate that the 'you' goes on, and retains the experience
of all any any activities you have ever been involved in so far..
We learn only by experience, which is why many masters teach
'compassion'. One mans judgment is another mans self created
appointment.
You also say 'suffer' and imply lethargy. Not so.
We all live alongside other solipsists (whether they yet realize it or
not).
Paradoxical?Only to the relative and temporary mind part.
BOfL
Dare
news:5f6b7080-9ac9-4ecf...@o18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Solipsism is a philosophical position that nothing outside one's own
mind can be known to exist, or, sometimes, the position that nothing
outside one's own mind does exist. Solipsism syndrome is, by
extension, the overwhelming feeling that nothing is real, that all is
a dream. Sufferers become lonely and detached from the world and
eventually become completely indifferent.
If the self is the only existing reality and all other reality,
including the external world and other persons, are representations of
that self having no independent existence and only one's own sensory
data and mental contents can be the basis for knowledge, and the self
creates all things in the percieved world, then why would the self
create an imperfect world with evil in it?
*********
Because the self is evil?
:-)
:-(
tooly
> "Immortalist" <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Yes...sort of. IMHO. Selfishness was always that final obstacle I
could not overcome in my reach toward higher realms [moral conscious
BEing]. Selfishness is the foundation of evil I think. I eat your
food; breathe your air; drink your water. If down the last morsel or
drop...we'd fight to the death, or...'commit self sacrifice'. Thusly
is the noble cause cast against itself, a selfishness.
What is the sociopath but the selfish advocate without internal moral
incrimination. Perhaps it is best understood by realizing that most
'moral' cause is 'selfless' in act...seeming 'self sacrificing' as
mentioned. Sir would probably throw out something like 'self
representational as quales in our brain for the next person' or
something, ha. Empathy is probably that capacity to 'realize' one's
self as that next person [ie representational]...thusly creating
logical behavior toward another as a seeming 'selfless act' for that
'represented self' [only a quale or whatever...and I still don't know
what a quale is...and no, I'm NOT going to say some bird you hunt].
That would be too gosh.
Sir Frederick Martin
What would a bacteria and bacteria colony or
a cockroach call evil, in their situation?
Look to that in a self-similar (fractal) way for 'our'
own considerations, in 'our' situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-similarity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal
Giga2
On Feb 8, 11:58 am, "Dare" <clydad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Immortalist" <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5f6b7080-9ac9-4ecf...@o18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Solipsism is a philosophical position that nothing outside one's own
> mind can be known to exist, or, sometimes, the position that nothing
> outside one's own mind does exist. Solipsism syndrome is, by
> extension, the overwhelming feeling that nothing is real, that all is
> a dream. Sufferers become lonely and detached from the world and
> eventually become completely indifferent.
>
> If the self is the only existing reality and all other reality,
> including the external world and other persons, are representations of
> that self having no independent existence and only one's own sensory
> data and mental contents can be the basis for knowledge, and the self
> creates all things in the percieved world, then why would the self
> create an imperfect world with evil in it?
>
> *********
> Because the self is evil?
>
> :-)
> :-(
Yes...sort of. IMHO. Selfishness was always that final obstacle I
could not overcome in my reach toward higher realms [moral conscious
BEing]. Selfishness is the foundation of evil I think.
=I tend to agree, I've wondered at how 'money is the root of all evil' could
even be considered compared to selfishness?
Zinnic
wrote:
odd!
> We learn only by experience, which is why many masters teach
> 'compassion'. One mans judgment is another mans self created
> appointment.
Do you mean that you can only blame yourself if you land up in court?
> You also say 'suffer' and imply lethargy. Not so.
>
> We all live alongside other solipsists (whether they yet realize it or
> not).
>
> Paradoxical?Only to the relative and temporary mind part.
>
> BOfL
There can be only one solipsist because it is all in his mind. Yours
or mine?
bigfl...@gmail.com
Why blame for the experience. I have been in court the last few days.
Fascinating experience.
>
> > You also say 'suffer' and imply lethargy. Not so.
>
> > We all live alongside other solipsists (whether they yet realize it or
> > not).
>
> > Paradoxical?Only to the relative and temporary mind part.
>
> > BOfL
>
> There can be only one solipsist because it is all in his mind. Yours
> or mine?
How can on posses a mind...ie 'yours or mine'.
You have hit on the answer without recognising it.
BOfL
sarge
To go at this phenomenologically.
The non-solipsist gets an image of the solipsist, with their mind
(generally seen as the brain) inside the head of a person 'out there'
and then can think that brain is being silly, self-not nice and has no
basis for thinking it is all that stuff 'out there.'
But this approach is based on so many assumptions. It has an assumed
subject object split and looks at the solipsist as something 'out
there'. How does this critic know this? How does it know that
subjects and objects are split? How does it know that there is
something beyond experience?
There is experience. And most of us break this down into stuff out
there and stuff in here (me) and this is very effective, but is it
true or is it a useful model.
Even modern neuroscience - though also making such assumptions - has a
kind of support for the solipsist. Everything we experience, many
think, is actually part of a virtual reality recreated inside our
brains. There is no direct contact. And while this theory is not
ontologically solipsistic. IOW it is not saying that Sirius is a part
of my mind. It is saying that everything we experience is a part of
our minds. We have no direct contact with what is out there.
Practically this is a kind of solipsism. It is not Mary, but rather
the instigated virtual Mary - a mass of diverse packets of information
reconstructed inside - that we experience.
Albert Tatlock
"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5f6b7080-9ac9-4ecf...@o18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> If the self is the only existing reality and all other reality, including
> the external world and other persons, are representations of that self
> having no independent existence and only one's own sensory data and mental
> contents can be the basis for knowledge, and the self creates all things
> in the percieved world, then why would the self create an imperfect world
> with evil in it?
if the self is the only exisiting reality then all existing realty is 'me'
so it would be rubbish to say that it 'creates' anything as though it were
something inside itself that 'creates' something else inside itself
Giga2
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:76f72fde-4300-494a...@o7g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
=Well Brian, you would say that in a sense solipcism is true because there
*is* only one universal consciouness.
bigfl...@gmail.com
end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Close.In metaphysical terms, there is a 'second grand division'. The
separation is that of the universal consciousness from the individual
consciousness. You can only know yourself, after recognising the
illusiory nature of the group.
Thats is really the spiritual essence behind the idea of solipsism.
The 'poetic nature' being, "that I am not" (group identity)..."that I
am" (individual realization). The awakening "I" first sees the
illusion and solipsism is a good label.
BOfL
Errol
wrote:
> Close.In metaphysical terms, there is a 'second grand division'. The
> separation is that of the universal consciousness from the individual
> consciousness. You can only know yourself, after recognising the
> illusiory nature of the group.
How is the group illusionary? Is the universal conscious a kind of
set of all consciousses?
ZX
> ... nothing outside one's own mind
This is the key to it here.
Mind is conceptualized as being "I" boxed up in a static physical
personal space and might be renamed Infancy Syndrome. If this is an
'overwhelming feeling' it is not a philosophical position.
Since this is being cross posted to alt.philosophy it is worth
mentioning the apparent very common occurrence of people who have
experienced some sort of trauma being forced into solipsism as a escape
mechanism in order to create another self and so another world. Their
previous self in the previous world becoming too painful and so
literally unthinkable.
This is a specific example of exactly what the method of science
addresses. Different 'selves' having access to the same data/information
arrive at the same conclusion or, if not, some 'one self' is in error. A
personal bias, as would be revealed in the solipsist, would be exposed
quickly.
I'd say, it is the fact scientific method exists that best counters
solipsism. Evil is ambiguous and the easy refuge of the willfully ignorant.
Zinnic
You have claimed there is an answer without giving it!
Giga2
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ce5e0b4-1227-434c...@8g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
=Can't say I follow.
Giga2
"Zinnic" <zeen...@gate.net> wrote in message
news:28711aa9-1a7c-4825...@k30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
: )
Immortalist
That would apply to about anything ever done before, maybe you have
some evidence that makes my behavior special?
tooly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hmm...well, money is a storage of value meant for bartering facility.
The real culprit that money facilitates around is 'scarcity'. But
that leads us back to selfishness. It gets complex with human ego of
course. The poorest among us live like kings and queens did centuries
ago [considering bare material needs], and yet, they remain 'poor'.
So there is always a 'relative' consideration, whereupon things like
greed and envy crop up...all related to the base foundation of self
[ishness].
Mating alignment [which relates to self image, again that
'selfishness'] probably has a lot to do with things.
At some point, human acts can cross that line and become real evil.
But the tiny seed that creates the giant oak looks to me to be simple
'selfishness' [and the fact that there are so many of us in a world of
scarcity].
Sir is probably right too, that evil is real only relative to OUR
existence [and not cockroaches]. Certainly, we can squash a cockroach
and not feel morally villified; but squash another human being [or
even something elevated on the food chain, like horses, monkeys, or
dolphins] and it gets more complex. I think intelligence has
something to do with things.
tooly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Absolutely Giga; who would WANT to go there? Well, I guess I did, way
back when. ZX 'innocently' hits close to suggest people seek
alternate self for reasons to escape pain of some sort [through the
self that world defines YOU as]. That's an important concept I
think...'As the world defines you'. See, I never have accepted how
the world has defined me...usually by job classification, or test
scores, or income level or what kind of house you live in, or
neighborhood you come from etc etc. So, it was not so much 'pain' [at
least as we normally think of pain] that drove me to my bout with
insanity, but simply that I was put in a BOX by society that was a
prison to me; small, confining, artificial...totally misrepresenting
who or what I was.
I was out to prove they were wrong.
The compartmentalized human being is like chickens they raise at
slaughter farms. We exist for function toward the whole, and as long
as we don't complain, we get a paycheck and are fed and housed and
live out our mundane lives [as engineers or whatever, ha] staying out
of harm's way. Ha again, as bad as that might be under free market
systems, I would wager it is many multiples worse under social
collective setups; Ugh..argh.
Anyway, what's in a name? Whatever we are, we are born
FREE...yet...well, not so it turns out. It is not what you do, but
who you ARE [an old hippie theme if I remember correctly...but a good
one]. I've known drug dealers and mafia who were RICH, and the
community built statues in their honor in town square [since they
build the local hospital or community college]. And I've known
paupers who ended up with nothing, who, IMHO, were stalwart human
beings, models of humanity.
And then the black man came along with his big dick and captured Cindy
Loo [ha...had to throw that in]...and my noble cause was destroyed.
At least it cured me of my solipsism; I mean, without Cindy Loo, none
of this matters much. If I am God [sic], this will not take place
again; that's for sure [my revenge on Cindy Loo I guess, ha]. Sorry.
Not to worry Errol; I'm 60 now; my days are numbered and the world is
soon yours [and your offspring etc]. Cindy Loo loves dick over noble
virtue, ha.
No, she really does.
bigfl...@gmail.com
The illusion can be seen only from the position of "I". To the 'group'
it appears real.
A famous example was illustrated in a recent documentary on Gandhi.
His vision for India was based on his individual consciousness. He
didnt understand how the group consciousness worked.
Another example would be a long term prisoner being released. He has
been indoctrinated for so long, that freedom causes disorientation.
Gandhi could see 'his own freedom' (truth), but thought it could be
projected onto the 'group'. The 'group' consist of individuals who
have yet to experience their own potency, and 'run with the herd'.
This is also illustrated at the particle level.
Physics demonstrates laws based on predictability. Then there is the
unpredictability of QM. A good example of man making observations in
synch with his consciousness.
Perhaps the greatest examples of the misrepresentation of this was
Neil Armstrong's immortal mistake, when he should have said 'one small
step for "a" man'.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
And yet is has been clearly identified that we each have 'departments'
of the brain that facilitates many levels of interpretation.
Often, it is only when 'one' has been bombarded with objective 'so
called' realities (consisting of a collective of subjective
realities), does one start to seek "higher ground".
In other words, one seeks truth,only having been confronted by
illusions.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
Thats the difference between a facilitator, and one who seeks to
impose his understanding on others..which is invariable to do with the
imposer seeking validity from within the 'group'.
"I know a messiah when I see one..I have followed a few in my time"
Reg from the Life Of Brian.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
Thats a good position to be in :-).
I read this just after I posted the Life Of Brian quote......
BOfL
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
The ultimate special is 'unique'. Are you not?
BOf
bigfl...@gmail.com
Self expressing "I"tself is labelled selfish. An emotive term based on
group misunderstanding.
Greed for greater materialism is simply an over compensation. The
belief that one can buy the unsellable. Evil is an intensified
example.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Feb 8, 4:41 am, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
>
>
> No, she really does.
Ever considered the similarity in Cindy Loo and Waterloo?
An analogy worthy of contemplation.
As an aside...Errol's days are numbered also :-)
BOfL
Giga2
> =I have had similar fears before regarding solipcism. At the end of the
> day
> I'm not sure there is a very strong rational argument against it. The best
> I
> have coe up with is; even if it were true why bother finding that out.
> Better to be deluded in this case IMO even if it were true, and it
> probably
> isn't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Absolutely Giga; who would WANT to go there? Well, I guess I did, way
back when. ZX 'innocently' hits close to suggest people seek
alternate self for reasons to escape pain of some sort [through the
self that world defines YOU as]. That's an important concept I
think...'As the world defines you'. See, I never have accepted how
the world has defined me...usually by job classification, or test
scores, or income level or what kind of house you live in, or
neighborhood you come from etc etc. So, it was not so much 'pain' [at
least as we normally think of pain] that drove me to my bout with
insanity, but simply that I was put in a BOX by society that was a
prison to me; small, confining, artificial...totally misrepresenting
who or what I was.
=Then you were experiencing a sort of waking up, or what could be called
'sanity'.
I was out to prove they were wrong.
The compartmentalized human being is like chickens they raise at
slaughter farms. We exist for function toward the whole, and as long
as we don't complain, we get a paycheck and are fed and housed and
live out our mundane lives [as engineers or whatever, ha] staying out
of harm's way. Ha again, as bad as that might be under free market
systems, I would wager it is many multiples worse under social
collective setups; Ugh..argh.
=It is not much of a life really IMO. There is a lot more available, maybe
not as comfortable or secure but more alive.
Giga2
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b0c1b063-1e7c-4345...@n36g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
=Nice quote.
Giga2
=And a seed puts down a root. How is that root money (I think the actual
quote is 'the *love* of money is the root of all evil' now I think about it
again). Very odd. Does it mean there was no evil before money? Or people
loved money even though it hadn't yet been invented? Very strange.
Zinnic
Do you see yourself as a "John the Baptist" facilitating the coming
of a New Age Messiah?
Scott Balneaves
<snip>
Quick question for discussion: Can a solipsist commit suicide? If so, how?
If not, how?
sarge
> In alt.atheism Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Quick question for discussion: Can a solipsist commit suicide? If so, how?
> If not, how?
All there is is experience. There is no cessation of experience for
the experiencer.
tooly
Ok, here's something to consider. Has anyone here had lucid dreams?
I have created worlds quite intricate, with characters that seem to
act upon on their own, women who love or reject me, men who are
friends or foes, and outcomes that seem that I cannot control. And
yet, in these world while I sleep, I am the Solipsist god of it's
creation...all powerful, the CREATOR.
And then we have the 'brain in the vat' concept to throw into the
mix...or the latest movie fare like Inception...and the possibility of
a solipsist reality increases somewhat. A dream within a dream...and
world's that might exist for thousands of years in the manner of a
nanosecond in some 'other dimensional' time we may be 'contained'
within [ie, like in the movie Inception]. Surely my solipsist 'lucid'
dreams are dreams within the makeship reality of my existential
perceptions of the supposed 'real' world. But we die here...so, IS
this the 'real' world? Do we understand the significance of
consciousness, and the possible connectivity that might reach into the
infinite. "Peshaw...silly foolishness", most would say. But while
dreaming just the other night, I lay in bed thinking that if this
turns out to be a dream I will be in total shock. And then I awoke
from sleep. I was amazed at how 'real' it was. As I am amazed how
'real' this is.
Solipsism is a tinker toy of intellectual parlour talk...but watch
out. Just watch out. Pulling anchor on the boat can set it adrift
into a sea beyond recognition in it's vast emptiness.
sarge
Yes, this is one take on the area I was slapdab referring to.
Solipsism is impossible to refute - which should not be confused with
it being correct.
bigfl...@gmail.com
Always interesting to see what your mind comes up with.
BOfL
Scott Balneaves
So, you're saying a solipsist can't commit suicide then?
Scott Balneaves
I think it's possible to refute it based on the premise that it doesn't have
any predictive or explainatory powers. For a solipsist, anything goes, which
is why I asked the question about suicide, since it's the one thing I can see
that might break the perfect mirror surface of it.
If a solipsist CAN commit suicide, then there IS an objective world.
Albert Tatlock
news:ij3hkm$568$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
Thats not a refutation but a repudiation.
For a solipsist, anything goes, which
> is why I asked the question about suicide, since it's the one thing I can
> see
> that might break the perfect mirror surface of it.
>
> If a solipsist CAN commit suicide, then there IS an objective world.
The solipsist makes the claim that he IS the world (objective + subjective).
Zinnic
Still interested in what it is that you think you are "facilitating'.
Scott Balneaves
In and of itself, I'd agree. But I think you could probably come up with a
refuation along those lines. Seems to me some kind of "Reductio ad absurdum"
type proof could be come up with, but I could be wrong.
> For a solipsist, anything goes, which
>> is why I asked the question about suicide, since it's the one thing I can
>> see
>> that might break the perfect mirror surface of it.
>>
>> If a solipsist CAN commit suicide, then there IS an objective world.
>
> The solipsist makes the claim that he IS the world (objective + subjective).
The solipsist can't make that claim. The solipsist can't prove the objective
exists, so the solipsist can't evidence that s/he has an objective component.
The solipsist can only evidence their subjective component, which leads me back
to my original question.
With the exception of choking oneself to death with their hands, or swallowing
their tongue, I can't think of too many other ways for a solipsist to kill
themselves that doesn't depend on an objective reality outside of themselves.
Guns are out, stabbing's out, jumping off structures is out, poison's out,
death by cop is out, hanging yourself with a belt is out, drowning's out,
standing outside in a thunderstorm holding a 35 foot metal pole whilst
simultaneously standing in a bucket of water is out. Getting trampled to death
by a crowd is *RIGHT OUT*.
And, now that I think about it, strangulation's out too, since "cutting off
your air supply" would require there to be air. So the hand's and the tongue
thing's out.
Nope, a solipsist can't logically commit suicide successfully without
disproving their worldview.
Now, if they FAIL......
Albert Tatlock
the solipsist doesn't need to prove the objective exists, the
subjective/objective distinction is just a conceptual division appearing in
the world that he IS.
dorayme
Scott Balneaves <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
> > The solipsist makes the claim that he IS the world (objective +
> > subjective).
>
> The solipsist can't make that claim. The solipsist can't prove the objective
> exists, so the solipsist can't evidence that s/he has an objective component.
Neither can the non-solipsist. It just never stops on this usenet
group, everyone wanting *proof*, where do you all think you are?
In a maths class?
--
dorayme
Immortalist
> In alt.atheism Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Quick question for discussion: Can a solipsist commit suicide? If so, how?
> If not, how?
Yes, if the self is the activities of the brain. But that self would
only experience the pre-death pain, not the cessation of consciousness.
Scott Balneaves
Then how can he even say there IS an objective at all? All the solipsist knows
is his thoughts and what he imagines he's percieving. He has no reason to
believe he's comprised of anything else other than his thoughts.
sarge
> In article <ij4bkg$61...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
> > > The solipsist makes the claim that he IS the world (objective +
> > > subjective).
>
> > The solipsist can't make that claim. The solipsist can't prove the objective
> > exists, so the solipsist can't evidence that s/he has an objective component.
>
> Neither can the non-solipsist. It just never stops on this usenet
> group, everyone wanting *proof*, where do you all think you are?
> In a maths class?
>
> --
> dorayme
LOL. Good point.
But I think there is an even more fundamental confusion in the post.
The objective/subjective dichotomy has very little meaning to a
solipsist. And why would a solipsist want to prove something to
someone else?
Scott Balneaves
*I*'m not asking for proof. I'm perfectly happy in the reality I'm in. I
don't even care if the reality my senses are feeding me is the *real* reality,
as has been argued here before: it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is
that, whatever information our senses relay to us about reality, it's
consistent. i.e. The sky may not really be "blue", but whatever the colour
actually is, we always see it as blue. It's repeatable.
So far, it seems to be so, and I don't crave absolute surity.
I just ignore obvious BS.
sarge
> In alt.atheism Albert Tatlock <albert.tatl...@yahou.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Scott Balneaves" <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote in message
> >news:ij4bkg$61n$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> In alt.atheism Albert Tatlock <albert.tatl...@yahou.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> "Scott Balneaves" <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:ij3hkm$568$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
thoughts taken in the old, broad sense of anything in the mind.
I think the phrase you use 'he imagines he's perceiving' is at the
very least a tricky one. Are you saying he is not perceiving what he
is perceiving?
And that last sentence: The solipsist is saying that all their is is
his or her mind. So that last sentence of yours is challenging the
solipsist with the solipsist's own assertion without changing it.
Scott Balneaves
>> In alt.atheism Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Quick question for discussion: Can a solipsist commit suicide? If so, how?
>> If not, how?
>
> Yes, if the self is the activities of the brain.
Solipsists can't assume they have a brain. :)
Look up a few posts.
sarge
No, I am saying that the question is meaningless to a solipsist.
Between you and me, sure, I think a solipsist can commit suicide. I
am not a solipsist. Immortalist has a different wording then mine in
his last post, but I think our idea is the same.
sarge
Any metaphysical system, at such a root level, has no predictive
powers. Assuming the subject object split has no predictive powers
to the solipsist. Whatever is predicted based on subject objects
splits - an axiom in scientific methodologies - can be seen by the
solipsist simply as something he or she is dreaming. We cannot point
to something the solipsist experiences and say, see, that came from
the outside world.
> For a solipsist, anything goes, which
> is why I asked the question about suicide, since it's the one thing I can see
> that might break the perfect mirror surface of it.
>
> If a solipsist CAN commit suicide, then there IS an objective world.
Why? 1) the solipsist no longer is, but this is never experienced.
Even if the solipsist could somehow notice this, he or she could say,
everthing ended when I did. 2) If you see someone who claims to be a
solipsist commit suicide, you have no idea if,in fact, only you exist
and you simply had, as a portion of your experience, this 'other' that
performed this act. Now you no longer experience this gestalt as a
living person in your inner film.
sarge
> In alt.atheism Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 10, 3:45 pm, Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
> >> In alt.atheism Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> Quick question for discussion: Can a solipsist commit suicide? If so, how?
> >> If not, how?
>
> > Yes, if the self is the activities of the brain.
>
> Solipsists can't assume they have a brain. :)
>
> Look up a few posts.
>
> > But that self would
> > only experience the pre-death pain, not the cessation of consciousness.
But that's not the key point.
dorayme
Scott Balneaves <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
> In alt.atheism dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > In article <ij4bkg$61n$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Scott Balneaves <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
> >
> >> > The solipsist makes the claim that he IS the world (objective +
> >> > subjective).
> >>
> >> The solipsist can't make that claim. The solipsist can't prove the
> >> objective
> >> exists, so the solipsist can't evidence that s/he has an objective
> >> component.
> >
> > Neither can the non-solipsist. It just never stops on this usenet
> > group, everyone wanting *proof*, where do you all think you are?
> > In a maths class?
>
> *I*'m not asking for proof.
So why make it a condition for the solipsist to reasonably
believe in his own objectivity that he must "prove" what you say
he must?
--
dorayme
sarge
> In alt.atheism dorayme <dora...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > In article <ij4bkg$61...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
> >> > The solipsist makes the claim that he IS the world (objective +
> >> > subjective).
>
> >> The solipsist can't make that claim. The solipsist can't prove the objective
> >> exists, so the solipsist can't evidence that s/he has an objective component.
>
> > Neither can the non-solipsist. It just never stops on this usenet
> > group, everyone wanting *proof*, where do you all think you are?
> > In a maths class?
>
> *I*'m not asking for proof.
being able to prove something. Dorayme was pointing out a problem
with this criticism.
I'm perfectly happy in the reality I'm in. I
> don't even care if the reality my senses are feeding me is the *real* reality,
> as has been argued here before: it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is
> that, whatever information our senses relay to us about reality, it's
> consistent. i.e. The sky may not really be "blue", but whatever the colour
> actually is, we always see it as blue. It's repeatable.
>
> So far, it seems to be so, and I don't crave absolute surity.
>
> I just ignore obvious BS.
The solipsist could could say something very similar.
Albert Tatlock
the words and concepts exist as part of the world that he IS. He (the world)
doesnt ACT on anything. He (the world) doesnt SAY anything. Thoughts and
words appear in the world that he IS just as trees and clouds appear in the
world that he IS. People, too, appear in the world that he IS. Its just that
these people are part of the solipsist (the world) not other than it. There
is no external reality for the solipsist.
Zinnic
wrote:
> "Scott Balneaves" <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ij4mnr$9t7$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>> >> "Scott Balneaves" <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote in message
> >>news:ij4bkg$61n$1...@news.eternal-september.org...> >>>> "Scott Balneaves" <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:ij3hkm$568$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
There can be only one solipsist. To admit that some other is also
'solipsising' is to deny Solipsism.
Scott Balneaves
No, I'm not. I'm saying the solipsist, according to his worldview, doesn't
know.
> And that last sentence: The solipsist is saying that all their is is
> his or her mind. So that last sentence of yours is challenging the
> solipsist with the solipsist's own assertion without changing it.
Yup. That's why I think solipsism's a useless philisophical position.
In the end, you can't say anything about anything.
Scott Balneaves
Correct. The solipsist has no reason to believe that anything actually exists.
So again, I ask: how can a solipsist commit suicide without denying his
worldview?
Scott Balneaves
OOOOH, Nice one!
Scott Balneaves
> In article <ij4mvp$9t7$4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Scott Balneaves <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
>> In alt.atheism dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> > In article <ij4bkg$61n$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> > Scott Balneaves <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > The solipsist makes the claim that he IS the world (objective +
>> >> > subjective).
>> >>
>> >> The solipsist can't make that claim. The solipsist can't prove the
>> >> objective
>> >> exists, so the solipsist can't evidence that s/he has an objective
>> >> component.
>> >
>> > Neither can the non-solipsist. It just never stops on this usenet
>> > group, everyone wanting *proof*, where do you all think you are?
>> > In a maths class?
>>
>> *I*'m not asking for proof.
>
> So why make it a condition for the solipsist to reasonably
> believe in his own objectivity that he must "prove" what you say
> he must?
I don't. He's welcome to believe whatever he wants. All I'm pointing out is,
if he believes he has an objective component (i.e. he actually exists as
baryonic matter), he's inconsistent with his worldview.
It's like saying I believe God is omniscient, but that I also have free will.
If God is omniscient, then my future's pre-ordained, and I have no free will.
I can certainly believe both. I'm just saying that if I do, those two beliefs
are fundamentally at odds with each other.
Scott Balneaves
>> In alt.atheism dorayme <dora...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <ij4bkg$61...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> > Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > The solipsist makes the claim that he IS the world (objective +
>> >> > subjective).
>>
>> >> The solipsist can't make that claim. The solipsist can't prove the objective
>> >> exists, so the solipsist can't evidence that s/he has an objective component.
>>
>> > Neither can the non-solipsist. It just never stops on this usenet
>> > group, everyone wanting *proof*, where do you all think you are?
>> > In a maths class?
>>
>> *I*'m not asking for proof.
> But you were clearly, see above, criticizing the solipsist for not
> being able to prove something. Dorayme was pointing out a problem
> with this criticism.
Incorrect. Where have I said the solipsist is an idiot, or a bad person, or
stupid because he can't prove things? I haven't.
I'm saying: solipsism is a useless worldview, in that you can't say anything
about *anything*. All you have is your thoughts. You can't prove any
objective reality.
I'm critisizing the solipsist worldview, not the solipsist.
> I'm perfectly happy in the reality I'm in. I
>> don't even care if the reality my senses are feeding me is the *real* reality,
>> as has been argued here before: it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is
>> that, whatever information our senses relay to us about reality, it's
>> consistent. i.e. The sky may not really be "blue", but whatever the colour
>> actually is, we always see it as blue. It's repeatable.
>>
>> So far, it seems to be so, and I don't crave absolute surity.
>>
>> I just ignore obvious BS.
>
> The solipsist could could say something very similar.
He certainly could, but then I could ask why the solipsist is imagining the BS
in the first place :)
Scott Balneaves
I agree. That's a problem with solipsism.
>> For a solipsist, anything goes, which
>> is why I asked the question about suicide, since it's the one thing I can see
>> that might break the perfect mirror surface of it.
>>
>> If a solipsist CAN commit suicide, then there IS an objective world.
>
> Why? 1) the solipsist no longer is, but this is never experienced.
Ahhh, but the solipsist is making the decision to transistion from the is to
the not is. Suicide is a conscious act, you decide to do it.
> Even if the solipsist could somehow notice this, he or she could say,
> everthing ended when I did.
This might be true if the solipsist is, say, murdered by someone, or dies of
natural causes. That's why I excluded them. Suicide's different; you're
actively *choosing* to cease to exist, and carrying out whatever actions
necessary to see that happen.
> 2) If you see someone who claims to be a
> solipsist commit suicide, you have no idea if,in fact, only you exist
> and you simply had, as a portion of your experience, this 'other' that
> performed this act. Now you no longer experience this gestalt as a
> living person in your inner film.
You're arguing about a solipsist imagining someone ELSE committing suicide.
That the solipsist can certainly do. But that's not the case I'm arguing.
I'm oversimplifying, but, assuming a 'hard' solipsist is right, and there is no
objective existance:
1) If a solipsist commits suicide, lets say by shooting himself in the head
(I'm picking this for the "instantaneousness" of it), then one possibility is
that he hears the bang, the bullet impacts the wall beside him, but he is
unhurt. He can't "imagine" himself to death.
2) He dies. Which, while he won't know it, proves that there was an objective
reality.
I guess my point here is: whether he dies or not isn't the point. Seems to me
a solipsist who puts a gun to his head has already admitted there is an
objective reality. If he actually believed in solipsism, he'd just try to kill
himself by not thinking anymore.
Scott Balneaves
>> In alt.atheism sarge <greasethew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 11 Feb, 00:45, Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>> >> In alt.atheism Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> <snip>
>>
>> >> Quick question for discussion: Can a solipsist commit suicide? If so, how?
>> >> If not, how?
>>
>> > All there is is experience. There is no cessation of experience for
>> > the experiencer.
>>
>> So, you're saying a solipsist can't commit suicide then?
>
> No, I am saying that the question is meaningless to a solipsist.
Maybe. Perhaps solipsists never commit suicide? I dunno, I've never actually
run into any *real* solipsists in my life. I suspect it's a worldview with a
fairly limited appeal.
> Between you and me, sure, I think a solipsist can commit suicide. I
> am not a solipsist. Immortalist has a different wording then mine in
> his last post, but I think our idea is the same.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I think a solipsist can commit suicide too. I'm just
asking the philisophical question: can the solipsist commit suicide WITHOUT
denying his worldview?
I'm not sure he can.
Personally, I wish he'd just phone the suicide prevention hotline and get some
help. I don't like to see anyone kill themselves.
Albert Tatlock
The world that the solipsist claiims he IS consists of things. Thats enough
to say that those things 'exist'. That would not be something the solipsist
BELIEVES because the solipsist does not BELIEVE anything at all. The
solipsist IS the world and beliefs appear in the world that the solipsist IS
just as trees and clouds do. The solipsist can not commit suicide because
the solipsist can not DO anything at all. The solipsist IS the world and
'doing' is something that goes on IN the world that the solipsist IS just as
raining goes on IN the world that the solipsist IS. The solipsists postition
is no less coherent than the realists position. Neither can be *proved* and
neither makes any difference to anything. Arguments for and against
solipsism, along with argument for and against realism, are just idle
speculation for people with time to waste.
Christopher A. Lee
<albert....@yahou.co.uk> wrote:
There's no need to argue against it.
Just punch them in the face and ask them if that was real.
Most of the people we see here aren't actually solipsists. They're
just being dishonest when asked to back up their claims and they
demand we prove something that wasn't in dispute and for which there
is everyday evidence.
"You can't even prove the Statue of Liberty is real so it is
unreasonable to demand I put up or shut up about the fairies at the
bottom of the garden when I raised the subject in the first place."
Scott Balneaves
OK, that's an answer. So if a solipsist takes a gun, puts it to his head, and
pulls the trigger, what happens?
> The solipsist IS the world and
> 'doing' is something that goes on IN the world that the solipsist IS just as
> raining goes on IN the world that the solipsist IS. The solipsists postition
> is no less coherent than the realists position. Neither can be *proved* and
> neither makes any difference to anything. Arguments for and against
> solipsism, along with argument for and against realism, are just idle
> speculation for people with time to waste.
Welcome to the "idle rich" club.
>
>
dorayme
Scott Balneaves <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
> > the words and concepts exist as part of the world that he IS. He (the
> > world)
> > doesnt ACT on anything. He (the world) doesnt SAY anything. Thoughts and
> > words appear in the world that he IS just as trees and clouds appear in the
> > world that he IS. People, too, appear in the world that he IS. Its just
> > that
> > these people are part of the solipsist (the world) not other than it. There
> > is no external reality for the solipsist.
>
> Correct. The solipsist has no reason to believe that anything actually
> exists.
> So again, I ask: how can a solipsist commit suicide without denying his
> worldview?
It is not obviously correct. Just because everything is in one
mind, does not mean that there is no action or that parts of the
mind are not acting on other parts. And it is just plain silly to
say that a solipsist has no reason to believe anything exists.
What game are you folk playing?
--
dorayme
dorayme
Scott Balneaves <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
> In alt.atheism dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > In article <ij4mvp$9t7$4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Scott Balneaves <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In alt.atheism dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >> > In article <ij4bkg$61n$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >> > Scott Balneaves <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > The solipsist makes the claim that he IS the world (objective +
> >> >> > subjective).
> >> >>
> >> >> The solipsist can't make that claim. The solipsist can't prove the
> >> >> objective
> >> >> exists, so the solipsist can't evidence that s/he has an objective
> >> >> component.
> >> >
> >> > Neither can the non-solipsist. It just never stops on this usenet
> >> > group, everyone wanting *proof*, where do you all think you are?
> >> > In a maths class?
> >>
> >> *I*'m not asking for proof.
> >
> > So why make it a condition for the solipsist to reasonably
> > believe in his own objectivity that he must "prove" what you say
> > he must?
>
> I don't. He's welcome to believe whatever he wants. All I'm pointing out is,
> if he believes he has an objective component (i.e. he actually exists as
> baryonic matter), he's inconsistent with his worldview.
>
What is baryonicity when it is at home?
> It's like saying I believe God is omniscient, but that I also have free will.
> If God is omniscient, then my future's pre-ordained, and I have no free will.
>
What has God's *omniscience* got to do with freewill? I know with
100% certainty what my daughter will do in some situations, that
does not somehow make her actions unfree. I am me, and she is she.
> I can certainly believe both. I'm just saying that if I do, those two beliefs
> are fundamentally at odds with each other.
You might need to sophisticate up your idea of freewill.
--
dorayme
dorayme
Scott Balneaves <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
> In alt.atheism sarge <grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > ...Dorayme was pointing out a problem
> > with this criticism.
>
Please tell sarge not to spell my name with a capital D.
> I'm saying: solipsism is a useless worldview, in that you can't say anything
> about *anything*. All you have is your thoughts. You can't prove any
> objective reality.
>
I keep telling you that no one can prove a thing outside maths
and you keep denying you are requiring proof. And keep requiring
it.
--
dorayme
dorayme
Scott Balneaves <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
> 1) If a solipsist ...can't "imagine" himself to death.
OK, we do it by imagining others and things going on without us.
He can do a variant, thinking that there will either not be
himself and nothing else from then on or else there will be a
replacement solipsist, maybe of a different sex. A solipsist is
someone who thinks he is the world. It does not *quite follow*
that he must think that if he can destroy his world, another
might not spring into existence.
--
dorayme
dorayme
Scott Balneaves <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
> ...solipsist...
>
> Personally, I wish he'd just phone the suicide prevention hotline and get some
> help. I don't like to see anyone kill themselves.
Don't worry, if he is a solipsist, you will never have the
displeasure.
--
dorayme
dorayme
"Albert Tatlock" <albert....@yahou.co.uk> wrote:
> The world that the solipsist claiims he IS consists of things. Thats enough
> to say that those things 'exist'. That would not be something the solipsist
> BELIEVES because the solipsist does not BELIEVE anything at all. The
> solipsist IS the world and beliefs appear in the world that the solipsist IS
> just as trees and clouds do. The solipsist can not commit suicide because
> the solipsist can not DO anything at all. The solipsist IS the world and
> 'doing' is something that goes on IN the world that the solipsist IS just as
> raining goes on IN the world that the solipsist IS. The solipsists postition
> is no less coherent than the realists position. Neither can be *proved* and
> neither makes any difference to anything. Arguments for and against
> solipsism, along with argument for and against realism, are just idle
> speculation for people with time to waste.
You have a strange idea of the solipsist as some passive thing.
--
dorayme
Immortalist
> In alt.atheism Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 10, 3:45 pm, Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
> >> In alt.atheism Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> Quick question for discussion: Can a solipsist commit suicide? If so, how?
> >> If not, how?
>
> > Yes, if the self is the activities of the brain.
>
> Solipsists can't assume they have a brain. :)
>
Can you explain your position about why solipsists cannot assume that
they have a brain? Does that mean that they cannot trust their own
ideas?
Albert Tatlock
In solipsism the question would be meaningless because there is nothing
external to the solipsist (the entire manifesting world that the solipsist
IS), so there is no gun external to the entire manifesting world that the
solipsist IS, and the solipsist is not a head to which that nonexistnet gun
can be put. The enitre manifesting world that the solipsist IS cant DO
anything at all, but IN IT things get done. You may ask what would happens
if the assumed host of this entire manifesting world shoujld be murdered by
somebody IN IT, and that question too would be meaningless in solipsism
because solipsism precludes that assumption of a host because then there
would be a world external to the solipsist. IN That wolrd there might appear
a gunshot and a pain, but there can be no knowledge of whether or not that
world can be terminated by such an event, nor knowledge of what might
succeed that event if the world isnt terminated by it. This is no different
to the realists question of "what will happens to me when I die?" The only
honest answer is I DONT KNOW, all I have are my OPINIONS about what might
happen to me when I die.
Albert Tatlock
"dorayme" <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:dorayme-724EA2...@hello.network...
fuck off and die bitch
>
> --
> dorayme
>
Immortalist
wrote:
> On Feb 7, 6:20 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Solipsism is a philosophical position that nothing outside one's own
> > mind can be known to exist, or, sometimes, the position that nothing
> > outside one's own mind does exist. Solipsism syndrome is, by
> > extension, the overwhelming feeling that nothing is real, that all is
> > a dream. Sufferers become lonely and detached from the world and
> > eventually become completely indifferent.
>
> > If the self is the only existing reality and all other reality,
> > including the external world and other persons, are representations of
> > that self having no independent existence and only one's own sensory
> > data and mental contents can be the basis for knowledge, and the self
> > creates all things in the percieved world, then why would the self
> > create an imperfect world with evil in it?
>
> > Why would a solipsist create things such as pain and loss for himself
> > or herself? More generally, it might be asked "If the world is
> > completely in my head, how come I don't live the most fantastic life
> > imaginable?"
>
> > 1. One response would be to simply plead ignorance and note that there
> > may be some reason which was forgotten on purpose. Perhaps this is all
> > out of a desire to avoid being bored, or perhaps even that the
> > solipsist is in fact living the most perfect life he or she could
> > imagine.
>
> > 2. Another response is that categories such as 'pain' are perceptions
> > assumed with all of the other socio-cultural human values that the
> > solipsist has created for himself — a package deal, so to speak.
>
> > 3. A third response is to say that, like a dream, the solipsist's
> > subconscious mind creates a world which the solipsist's conscious mind
> > might not have chosen but has no control over changing
>
> > This issue is somewhat related to theodicy, the "problem of evil",
> > except that the solipsist himself is the all-powerful God who has
> > somehow allowed imperfection into his world. A solipsist may also
> > counter that since he never made himself he never had a choice in the
> > way his mind operates and appears to have only limited control over
> > how his experiences evolve. He could also conclude that the world of
> > his own mind's creation is the exact total of all his desires,
> > conscious and otherwise and that each moment is always perfect in the
> > sense that it would not be other than as his own mind in total had
> > made.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsismhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/
>
> You say 'mind', but if you expand you reference (even for hypothetical
> reasons) to 'self'' (the body and mind being components), then you can
> at least speculate that the 'you' goes on, and retains the experience
> of all any any activities you have ever been involved in so far..
>
> We learn only by experience, which is why many masters teach
> 'compassion'. One mans judgment is another mans self created
> appointment.
>
> You also say 'suffer' and imply lethargy. Not so.
>
> We all live alongside other solipsists (whether they yet realize it or
> not).
>
But all you have is the contents of your own experience to decide that
we live that way. Why would these experiences be true or false when
they are attributed to the concept called; the world?
> Paradoxical?Only to the relative and temporary mind part.
>
> BOfL
Immortalist
> "Immortalist" <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5f6b7080-9ac9-4ecf...@o18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Solipsism is a philosophical position that nothing outside one's own
> mind can be known to exist, or, sometimes, the position that nothing
> outside one's own mind does exist. Solipsism syndrome is, by
> extension, the overwhelming feeling that nothing is real, that all is
> a dream. Sufferers become lonely and detached from the world and
> eventually become completely indifferent.
>
> If the self is the only existing reality and all other reality,
> including the external world and other persons, are representations of
> that self having no independent existence and only one's own sensory
> data and mental contents can be the basis for knowledge, and the self
> creates all things in the percieved world, then why would the self
> create an imperfect world with evil in it?
>
> Because the self is evil?
>
What is "evil"?
> :-)
> :-(
bigfl...@gmail.com
> to the realists question of "what will happens to me when I die?" The only
> honest answer is I DONT KNOW, all I have are my OPINIONS about what might
> happen to me when I die.
When you know you have lived before, you know what happens after.
Until one knows that, opinions and beliefs will have to do.
The paradox emerges when one does make such discovery, it can bee seen
that each individual actually is the center of his own reality. A
'true' solipsist, surrounded by other solipsists.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
I can refer you to Pythagoras who talked about the need to know
thyself, before being able to recognize the universe.
Dont you find it intriguing that masters from that period made such
statements without the benefit of modern science, relating to
neurobiology, q.m. and the recognition that our brains are subject to
the process of neuroplasticity.
I was listening to the ex Gouvernator talking to a bunch of students
(his first term), and how he saw himself as a world champ bodybuilder,
the biggest earner in movies, and then the Govenor of the biggest
economy in the US.
Creations of his experiences from vision to realization.....If he had
have sought your advice when he was15, would you have labelled his
approach as 'true or false'.
You got to get above the binary to see and experience reality at work.
BOfL
Scott Balneaves
Have you looked up the definition of solipsism?
Scott Balneaves
About 3, give or take.
>> It's like saying I believe God is omniscient, but that I also have free will.
>> If God is omniscient, then my future's pre-ordained, and I have no free will.
>>
>
> What has God's *omniscience* got to do with freewill? I know with
> 100% certainty what my daughter will do in some situations,
No, you have a pretty good idea what your daughter's going to do. That's
different from *omniscience*, which means that I *know*, with 100% certainty,
everything.
If God is omniscient, then he knows, absolutely and without a doubt, what the
future is. Therefore, I have no free will, since God already knows what path
I'm going to take *without fail*.
It doesn't have anything to do with the discussion other than to point out an
example of holding two ideas that are mutually exclusive.
> that
> does not somehow make her actions unfree. I am me, and she is she.
I agree.
>
>> I can certainly believe both. I'm just saying that if I do, those two beliefs
>> are fundamentally at odds with each other.
>
> You might need to sophisticate up your idea of freewill.
Why? Where have I gone wrong with it?
Scott Balneaves
> Scott Balneaves <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
>> In alt.atheism sarge <grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > ...Dorayme was pointing out a problem
>> > with this criticism.
>>
>
> Please tell sarge not to spell my name with a capital D.
You're a big boy, I'll let you fight your own battles.
>> I'm saying: solipsism is a useless worldview, in that you can't say anything
>> about *anything*. All you have is your thoughts. You can't prove any
>> objective reality.
>>
> I keep telling you that no one can prove a thing outside maths
> and you keep denying you are requiring proof. And keep requiring
> it.
Sigh. The definition of solipsism is that they don't accept anything outside
their thoughts. Most of us accept that there's an objective reality out there.
I'm not asking the solipsist to prove anything. I'm just asking: can a
solipsist commit suicide without conceding that there is an objective reality?
It's a philisophical question I'm asking.
Scott Balneaves
I'm not asking what the solipsist thinks will happen *after* he commits
suicide. I'm asking how a solipsist kills himself without having to grant that
there's an objective reality outside of him/herself.
So far, there doesn't seem to be a good answer. I don't have one, myself, I'm
just wondering if someone else has read about this before, or reasoned it
through.
Scott Balneaves
Well, no. He could admit there is an external reality, and then kill himself.
Scott Balneaves
> On Feb 11, 5:17 pm, Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 10, 3:45 pm, Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>> >> In alt.atheism Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> <snip>
>>
>> >> Quick question for discussion: Can a solipsist commit suicide? If so, how?
>> >> If not, how?
>>
>> > Yes, if the self is the activities of the brain.
>>
>> Solipsists can't assume they have a brain. :)
>>
>
> Can you explain your position about why solipsists cannot assume that
> they have a brain?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
"Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's
own *mind* is sure to exist." (my emphasis)
http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/
'Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that "I am the only mind which
exists," or "My mental states are the only mental states."'
Note the emphasis on mind. As I understand solipsism, at the end of the day,
all you know are your thoughts. Everything else can't be *proved* (a word you
don't like) to exist.
> Does that mean that they cannot trust their own
> ideas?
Well, that's a good one. That I don't know.
dorayme
Scott Balneaves <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
No, I don't do definitions or proof, that is for you guys. I do
understanding. You presumably have access to some definition
somewhere that says a mind cannot have parts or the parts cannot
act on each other or you misguidedly so interpret it.
--
dorayme
dorayme
Scott Balneaves <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
> > What has God's *omniscience* got to do with freewill? I know with
> > 100% certainty what my daughter will do in some situations,
>
> No, you have a pretty good idea what your daughter's going to do. That's
> different from *omniscience*, which means that I *know*, with 100% certainty,
> everything.
>
What is the relevant difference? Why does 100% make the big
difference. God is God and the poor schmuck with the freewill is
the schmuck with the freewill.
> If God is omniscient, then he knows, absolutely and without a doubt, what the
> future is. Therefore,
A non-sequitur. But you cannot see it! And you give no argument
for it!
> I have no free will, since God already knows what path
> I'm going to take *without fail*.
>
Keep saying it, is this argument by repeating an assertion. You
are supposed to be a philosopher, so critically reflect. Need
help?
> It doesn't have anything to do with the discussion other than to point out an
> example of holding two ideas that are mutually exclusive.
Thanks for this last, fancy thinking I am the idiot around here!
--
dorayme
dorayme
Scott Balneaves <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
> In alt.atheism dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > In article <ij6m58$u8t$5...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Scott Balneaves <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In alt.atheism sarge <grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > ...Dorayme was pointing out a problem
> >> > with this criticism.
> >>
> >
> > Please tell sarge not to spell my name with a capital D.
>
> You're a big boy, I'll let you fight your own battles.
No I am not, I am 4 inches high, a freak of extra terrestrial
nature. I need help. Tell him!
>
> >> I'm saying: solipsism is a useless worldview, in that you can't say
> >> anything
> >> about *anything*. All you have is your thoughts. You can't prove any
> >> objective reality.
> >>
> > I keep telling you that no one can prove a thing outside maths
> > and you keep denying you are requiring proof. And keep requiring
> > it.
>
> Sigh. The definition of solipsism is that they don't accept anything outside
> their thoughts. Most of us accept that there's an objective reality out
> there.
A solipsist is not someone who thinks he has no mind or or that
his mind is somehow composed of thoughts, these are just
variations or sophistications or sillinesses. A solipsist is
someone who thinks there is only himself and that he is a mind.
> I'm not asking the solipsist to prove anything. I'm just asking: can a
> solipsist commit suicide without conceding that there is an objective
> reality?
>
> It's a philisophical question I'm asking.
Then use language accurately to reflect your thoughts.
--
dorayme
Scott Balneaves
LOL
<snip>
Albert Tatlock
> In alt.atheism Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 11, 5:17 pm, Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>>> In alt.atheism Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Feb 10, 3:45 pm, Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>>> >> In alt.atheism Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> <snip>
>>>
>>> >> Quick question for discussion: Can a solipsist commit suicide? If so,
>>> >> how?
>>> >> If not, how?
>>>
>>> > Yes, if the self is the activities of the brain.
>>>
>>> Solipsists can't assume they have a brain. :)
>>>
>>
>> Can you explain your position about why solipsists cannot assume that
>> they have a brain?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
>
> "Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's
> own *mind* is sure to exist." (my emphasis)
>
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/
>
> 'Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that "I am the only mind
> which
> exists," or "My mental states are the only mental states."'
>
> Note the emphasis on mind. As I understand solipsism, at the end of the
> day, all you know are your thoughts.
that might be true if your mind were nothing more than your thoughts but if
you admit your perceptions as being part of your mind as well as your
thoughts then you might ask what more there need to be of a tree than your
perception of it. that is what admit the possibility that there is nothing
at all other than "my mental states". The difinitions you give above are
worded in a way that allow the word to be used for something else though, it
allows the word to be used for a kind of realism where things have an
existence exterenal to my mind but where I am the only thing with a mind.
I'm not sure how widely it is understood that way.
Scott Balneaves
> Scott Balneaves <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
>> > What has God's *omniscience* got to do with freewill? I know with
>> > 100% certainty what my daughter will do in some situations,
>>
>> No, you have a pretty good idea what your daughter's going to do. That's
>> different from *omniscience*, which means that I *know*, with 100% certainty,
>> everything.
>>
>
> What is the relevant difference? Why does 100% make the big
> difference.
Erm, you can't see a difference between an educated guess and absoulte
knowledge of future events?
> God is God and the poor schmuck with the freewill is
> the schmuck with the freewill.
If there is a God, and and he's omniscient, he knows exactly what you're going
to do from the moment you're born, to the moment you die. Therefore, you have
no free will: you can't do something that God supposedly doesn't already know
about. You run on the little steel rails he's laid down for you with his
prescience.
>
>> If God is omniscient, then he knows, absolutely and without a doubt, what the
>> future is. Therefore,
>
> A non-sequitur. But you cannot see it! And you give no argument
> for it!
If I have free will, I can make my own decisions. I can choose to do something
that God may not have forseen, thereby "surprising" God. But God, if he
exists, supposedly, according to a great many theists, has this property of
omniscience, which means that I'm incapable of surprising him. My free will is
an illusion.
>
>
>> I have no free will, since God already knows what path
>> I'm going to take *without fail*.
>>
>
> Keep saying it, is this argument by repeating an assertion. You
> are supposed to be a philosopher, so critically reflect. Need
> help?
Who said I was a philosopher?
>
>> It doesn't have anything to do with the discussion other than to point out an
>> example of holding two ideas that are mutually exclusive.
>
> Thanks for this last, fancy thinking I am the idiot around here!
>
When did I ever call you an idiot?
Scott Balneaves
> In article <ij7mc6$c3c$3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Scott Balneaves <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
>> In alt.atheism dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> > In article <ij6m58$u8t$5...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> > Scott Balneaves <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In alt.atheism sarge <grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > ...Dorayme was pointing out a problem
>> >> > with this criticism.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Please tell sarge not to spell my name with a capital D.
>>
>> You're a big boy, I'll let you fight your own battles.
>
> No I am not, I am 4 inches high, a freak of extra terrestrial
> nature. I need help. Tell him!
Sorry, I refuse.
>>
>> >> I'm saying: solipsism is a useless worldview, in that you can't say
>> >> anything
>> >> about *anything*. All you have is your thoughts. You can't prove any
>> >> objective reality.
>> >>
>> > I keep telling you that no one can prove a thing outside maths
>> > and you keep denying you are requiring proof. And keep requiring
>> > it.
>>
>> Sigh. The definition of solipsism is that they don't accept anything outside
>> their thoughts. Most of us accept that there's an objective reality out
>> there.
>
> A solipsist is not someone who thinks he has no mind or or that
> his mind is somehow composed of thoughts, these are just
> variations or sophistications or sillinesses. A solipsist is
> someone who thinks there is only himself and that he is a mind.
Question: is "a mind" = 1.4 kilograms of brain tissue sitting in a bony
structure? Does "a mind" necessitate a objective component?
>> I'm not asking the solipsist to prove anything. I'm just asking: can a
>> solipsist commit suicide without conceding that there is an objective
>> reality?
>>
>> It's a philisophical question I'm asking.
>
> Then use language accurately to reflect your thoughts.
I'll use whatever language I possess.
Kadaitcha Man
greasy-haired recreant limb, a lying perfect gallows, a neutered
botch, a good-for-nothing dick, I will find ye twenty lascivious
turtles ere one chaste man. Ye popped off:
> In alt.atheism dorayme<dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> In article<ij7lrl$c3c$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> No, I don't do definitions or proof, that is for you guys. I do
>> understanding.
>
> LOL
It isn't so absurd, Scott. Theoreticians leave the proof to others.
--
bannocks : exclamation Scottish equivalent of bollocks (qv). : n.
Jockspeak for nads; knackers; plums.
Scott Balneaves
One of the links was from the internet encyclopedia of philosophy. If there's
another definition somewhere else, I'm happy to have a look.
Scott Balneaves
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 06:21:27 +0000 (UTC), Scott Balneaves
Maybe so, but at least I'm not a chiropractor.
>
>
> Dr. GW, DC, ND, MRT
> Chiropractic Physician
> Master of Reiki Therapy
> Doctor of Homeopathy & Naturopathy
>
> Sometimes believing is seeing. Think about it.
>
> Somebody love's you:
> http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0006/0006_01.asp
>