Catholic Refutation of Solipsism

[JuanFlorencio]

This is true if one is talking about metaphysical solipsism. But if one is referring to epistemological solipsism, then the answer is inescapable, life is a solipsistic experience.

I wonder if it was this the kind of solipsism that Upgrade25 wanted to see refuted. Was it Upgrade25?

Obviously, as long as others try to refute you, or simply express their disagreement with your views, they will be showing that there is some truth in what you say. You are alone with your thoughts and they are alone with theirs. Then, Rohzek comes and writes an statement, and you read it and respond. Both acts are coherent between them. This shows that you are partially wrong. Your epistemological solitude is not absolute. For a short moment you and Rohzek have met.

Naturally, you are not Rohzek, and Rohzek is not you, and never will be. And this means precisely that Rohzek’s experience of the world (Rohzek’s world) and your experience of the world (your world) are dramatically different. But…, does it imply that talking to each other is useless? Someone might be interested on what you say! That person will listen to you; and perhaps listening to you will mold her life. The same can happen to you if you listen to somebody else. Actually, it is evident that you have been molded by a variety of discourses that you have found along your life. This implies that many others share with you pieces of discourses that are an integral part of your operating mind. So, you have points of contact (regions of contact!) with many others; though you also have regions of difference (and even disagreement) with them; but who doesn’t?

I tend to agree with you on what you call “epistemological solipsism”, without taking it to the extreme, and it acquires to me a positive value: My “understanding” can be enhanced through the interaction with others who have had other life experiences, different to mine.

 

[Rhubarb]

In a way though, isn’t this an argument FOR solipsism, not against it. If I should carry out this experiment, what happens? From your perspective not a lot. Other than there being one less poster on CAF, it would tell you absolutely nothing about whether reality exists independent of your own mind. The only way that you could garner any definitive information from such an experiment, is to perform it yourself. This is true for you. It’s true for me. And it’s true for everyone. Ultimately, reality is a solipsistic experience, and it will always be a solipsistic experience.

But what happens from my perspective? I don’t know. Perhaps nothing. Perhaps the notion of “quantum suicide” holds true, and no matter how hard I try, I simply can’t die. Or perhaps I end up in the afterlife, in which case the question remains, is reality all in my mind. Or perhaps my consciousness ceases to exist, in which case reality as I experienced it ceases to exist as well. So performing such an experiment tells us absolutely nothing. Life is, and always will be, a solipsistic experience.

If we discard metaphysical solipsism and talk only about epistemic solipsism (which I take to mean the only thing we can know is our own minds), we’re rehashing what Descartes and Kant notices long ago. That we have to frame our understanding in our experiences. To say that the wall of our experience blocks us from having knowledge of the external world requires a very strict definition of knowledge - one that contemporary epistemologists don’t take very seriously.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Obviously, as long as others try to refute you, or simply express their disagreement with your views, they will be showing that there is some truth in what you say. You are alone with your thoughts and they are alone with theirs. Then, Rohzek comes and writes an statement, and you read it and respond. Both acts are coherent between them. This shows that you are partially wrong. Your epistemological solitude is not absolute. For a short moment you and Rohzek have met.

I actually find this line of reasoning to be quite interesting. Although I’m probably reading into it something other than what you intended. While it’s true that I can never be certain whether Rohzek has any objective existence outside of my own mind, his thoughts do demonstrate some manner of distinction from my thoughts. Thus it could be argued that there are thoughts other than those which I perceive to be my own. And if there are thoughts which aren’t my own, am I really alone?

Unfortunately, although it may give me the illusion of not being alone, it doesn’t rise to the level of proving that I’m not alone. Such external minds may simply be an illusion. There seems to be the perception that creating the illusion of physical objects is relatively easy, compared to creating the illusion of other minds. After all, how can an illusionary mind conceive of something that the source mind can’t? How can others know things that I don’t? Quite easily actually, although a tad difficult to explain.

Consider for a moment the thought experiment of Schrodinger’s cat. When we open the box and look inside, the cat can be in any possible state. So long as that state is consistent with the state of the system in the past. It doesn’t matter whether you were able to conceive of the end state, because it’s not about what you can conceive, it’s simply about what’s possible. The cat can be in any possible state regardless of whether you could conceive of that state beforehand. The same may hold true for the manner in which the conscious mind produces reality. It’s not about what the conscious mind can conceive, it’s simply about what’s possible. The mind produces reality from what’s possible, not from what it can conceive. And reality remains coherent, because what’s possible, must always be consistent with what was. So if it’s possible for independent thoughts to arise, they will.

Again I must provide a disclaimer, I have no idea if this is anything more than complete hooey. I’m just trying to demonstrate that it’s possible for the conscious mind to produce a reality that looks exactly like this one. I would also conjecture further, that reality looks more like something my conscious mind would create, than something that a loving God would create. I wouldn’t dismiss however, the possibility that such a God created me.

 

[Partinobodycula]

To say that the wall of our experience blocks us from having knowledge of the external world requires a very strict definition of knowledge - one that contemporary epistemologists don’t take very seriously.

I hope you’ll agree that what other people take seriously should hardly be the benchmark by which we measure the accuracy of our hypotheses.

You’re correct, our experiences don’t block us from having knowledge of an external world. But it’s not the existence of an external world that’s uncertain, it’s the nature of the external world that’s uncertain. It’s also a question of what I define as “me”. For example, when you dream there’s a perspective which you ascribe to being you, and there are other things which you perceive as being external to “you”. Yet all of these things, are to the best of our knowledge, being created within your own mind. So are they external to you, or are they not?

This is the conundrum upon which solipsism resides. And it’s not one that’s easily overcome. I see a world that I perceive to be external to me. But is its existence truly independent of my own? Just as the dream is dependent upon the dreamer, is reality dependent upon the consciousness perceiving it?

At the risk of being heretical, I would liken it to the concept of God, in that Catholics consider reality to be dependent upon that which sustains it. I.E. God.

Don’t let this thought give you the impression that I think I’m God. I don’t. For I don’t see how I could’ve given rise to myself.

 

[e_c]

At the risk of being heretical…

We’re way beyond heresy now, sorry to burst your bubble. There can’t even BE Christianity in this worldview, no matter how good Bishop Berkely’s commentaries on Scripture are.

Don’t let this thought give you the impression that I think I’m God. I don’t. For I don’t see how I could’ve given rise to myself.

Would you align yourself with Berkely? Or Spinoza? Or did you read some Descartes and just not buy his argument for the external world? Another influence?

This is the one school of thought where literally everyone else knows you’re wrong with perfect certainty. Ponder on that for a moment.

And it is a discursive understanding because it is a limited understanding; so, because it is an understanding (something that grows), it becomes richer and richer as time goes on; but many times it makes mistakes, and other times a given thought seems to it more appropriate than another; then, it’s richness is, at least in part, a mixture of error and approximations. How does it come to know that a given thought is erroneous, and how is it that such error appeared as true to it at the beginning? How is it that the thought that seemed accurate to it at the beginning, becomes inaccurate to it afterwards? It is precisely because it is a limited understanding. It is because the objects which appear to it are not it. Most of its objects come from beyond, and appear to it without asking for its permission, luminous and obscure at the same time, closed and promising simultaneously. If every thought were an integral “part” of the understanding, there would be no error, but only truth; no approximations, but only exactitude; no darkness, but pure luminosity. In its efforts to grow, the understanding tries to assimilate its objects, it tries to become them; but it fails. Its failure, the obscurity that always remains, the imprecision that cannot be totally eliminated, the intrusion of new opaque thoughts, make it patent that its solitude is not ontological, but only epistemic, at the most.

This is on track. And this is the way to deal with these issues… Other approaches will ultimately beg the question.

 

[inocente]

It’s not so much that I lack the courage, although perhaps I do, it’s that I assume that I’ll find out soon enough, and I see no reason to hasten the inevitable. Besides, I’ve got a life to live, and I want to experience every last moment of it. I want to know what it’s like to get old. I want to know what it’s like to look back on life and know that I persevered. That I overcame. That I endured. That I’m wiser and fuller now than I was. It’s not that I’m afraid of death, it’s that I love life. What becomes of me when I die, I don’t know. But what matters to me now, is how I live. If there’s a God, then I can only hope that that’s what matters to Him as well.

And so real or illusion, it doesn’t matter, life is a treasure. It’s a gift. Live it honorably, graciously, and well. For what will be, will be.

In his philosophical treatise The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams makes the ruler of the universe a solipsist, as a warning that only someone disengaged from the consequences of their actions could do such a job. In the following dialog, MAN is the ruler - he has no name because to him “it seems odd to give a bundle of vague sensory perceptions a name”.

ZARNIWOOP: No. Listen. People come to you, yes?

MAN: I think so.

ZARNIWOOP: And they ask you to take decisions—about wars, about economies, about people, about everything going on out there in the Universe?

MAN: I only decide about my Universe. My Universe is what happens to my eyes and ears. Anything else is surmise and hearsay. For all I know, these people may not exist. You may not exist. I say what it occurs to me to say.

ZARNIWOOP: But don’t you see? What you decide affects the fate of millions of people.

MAN: I don’t know them, I’ve never met them. They only exist in words I think I hear. The men who come say to me, say, so and so wants to declare what we call a war. These are the facts, what do you think? And I say. Sometimes it’s a smaller thing. …]

ZARNIWOOP: But don’t you see that people live or die on your word?

MAN: It’s nothing to do with me, I am not involved with people. The Lord knows I am not a cruel man.

ZARNIWOOP: Ah! You say … the Lord! You believe in…

MAN: My cat. I call him the Lord. I am kind to him.

ZARNIWOOP: All right. How do you know he exists? How do you know he knows you to be kind, or enjoys what you think of as your kindness?

MAN: I don’t. I have no idea. It merely pleases me to behave in a certain way to what appears to be a cat.

autodidactproject.org/quote/hitch1.html

 

[Partinobodycula]

"e_c:

Would you align yourself with Berkely? Or Spinoza? Or did you read some Descartes and just not buy his argument for the external world? Another influence?

The extent of my philosophical education lies completely within the confines of this, and a few other forums. I have never read Bishop Berkely, or Spinoza, or Descartes, or anyone else besides a bit of Aquinas, and Wikipedia. I have only a ninth grade education, so if you like, you can attribute my misguided ideology to my lack of higher education. But forgive me if I don’t acquiesce to those more “knowledgeable”. For my foolishness, I have no one to blame but myself.

e_c:

This is the one school of thought where literally everyone else knows you’re wrong with perfect certainty. Ponder on that for a moment.

The value of this discourse doesn’t lie in your caring what I believe, but rather it lies in my caring what you believe. The value of life doesn’t lie in others concern for me, but in my concern for them.

In his philosophical treatise The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams makes the ruler of the universe a solipsist, as a warning that only someone disengaged from the consequences of their actions could do such a job. In the following dialog, MAN is the ruler - he has no name because to him “it seems odd to give a bundle of vague sensory perceptions a name”.

ZARNIWOOP: No. Listen. People come to you, yes?

MAN: I think so.

ZARNIWOOP: And they ask you to take decisions—about wars, about economies, about people, about everything going on out there in the Universe?

MAN: I only decide about my Universe. My Universe is what happens to my eyes and ears. Anything else is surmise and hearsay. For all I know, these people may not exist. You may not exist. I say what it occurs to me to say.

ZARNIWOOP: But don’t you see? What you decide affects the fate of millions of people.

MAN: I don’t know them, I’ve never met them. They only exist in words I think I hear. The men who come say to me, say, so and so wants to declare what we call a war. These are the facts, what do you think? And I say. Sometimes it’s a smaller thing. …]

ZARNIWOOP: But don’t you see that people live or die on your word?

MAN: It’s nothing to do with me, I am not involved with people. The Lord knows I am not a cruel man.

ZARNIWOOP: Ah! You say … the Lord! You believe in…

MAN: My cat. I call him the Lord. I am kind to him.

ZARNIWOOP: All right. How do you know he exists? How do you know he knows you to be kind, or enjoys what you think of as your kindness?

MAN: I don’t. I have no idea. It merely pleases me to behave in a certain way to what appears to be a cat.

autodidactproject.org/quote/hitch1.html

The tendency is for opponents to argue that solipsism leads to indifference, to which I would counter…what am I without you? It’s not that you’re nothing to me, it’s that you’re everything to me. Everything that I feel and experience, I feel because of you. And so I care when you cry, and when you suffer, and when you grieve. For in sharing such things with you, I’m alive. I’m not alone. You give meaning to me, as much as I give existence to you.

 

[Upgrade25]

I wonder if it was this the kind of solipsism that Upgrade25 wanted to see refuted. Was it Upgrade25?

Obviously, as long as others try to refute you, or simply express their disagreement with your views, they will be showing that there is some truth in what you say. You are alone with your thoughts and they are alone with theirs. Then, Rohzek comes and writes an statement, and you read it and respond. Both acts are coherent between them. This shows that you are partially wrong. Your epistemological solitude is not absolute. For a short moment you and Rohzek have met.

Naturally, you are not Rohzek, and Rohzek is not you, and never will be. And this means precisely that Rohzek’s experience of the world (Rohzek’s world) and your experience of the world (your world) are dramatically different. But…, does it imply that talking to each other is useless? Someone might be interested on what you say! That person will listen to you; and perhaps listening to you will mold her life. The same can happen to you if you listen to somebody else. Actually, it is evident that you have been molded by a variety of discourses that you have found along your life. This implies that many others share with you pieces of discourses that are an integral part of your operating mind. So, you have points of contact (regions of contact!) with many others; though you also have regions of difference (and even disagreement) with them; but who doesn’t?

I tend to agree with you on what you call “epistemological solipsism”, without taking it to the extreme, and it acquires to me a positive value: My “understanding” can be enhanced through the interaction with others who have had other life experiences, different to mine.

The solipsism where there is a greater force behind the mind that generates thoughts into it, controlling the situation and what I know, discoveries that are found out, etc. etc.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I actually find this line of reasoning to be quite interesting. Although I’m probably reading into it something other than what you intended. While it’s true that I can never be certain whether Rohzek has any objective existence outside of my own mind, his thoughts do demonstrate some manner of distinction from my thoughts. Thus it could be argued that there are thoughts other than those which I perceive to be my own. And if there are thoughts which aren’t my own, am I really alone?

Unfortunately, although it may give me the illusion of not being alone, it doesn’t rise to the level of proving that I’m not alone. Such external minds may simply be an illusion. There seems to be the perception that creating the illusion of physical objects is relatively easy, compared to creating the illusion of other minds. After all, how can an illusionary mind conceive of something that the source mind can’t? How can others know things that I don’t? Quite easily actually, although a tad difficult to explain.

Actually, this “line of reasoning” is implicit in my first post (#11).

So, you do distinguish some discourses which are different or even opposed to those which constitute your thoughts. And those discourses are not illusions. They are as real as “your own thoughts”, and you experience it.

Also, it is clear that you distinguish “illusions” from “truths”. What are the differences between them, and how is it that you are able to establish such distinction?

For the moment I will not insist on how strange your difficulty to produce something that you are not able to explain is. That will come later.

Consider for a moment the thought experiment of Schrodinger’s cat. When we open the box and look inside, the cat can be in any possible state. So long as that state is consistent with the state of the system in the past. It doesn’t matter whether you were able to conceive of the end state, because it’s not about what you can conceive, it’s simply about what’s possible. The cat can be in any possible state regardless of whether you could conceive of that state beforehand. The same may hold true for the manner in which the conscious mind produces reality. It’s not about what the conscious mind can conceive, it’s simply about what’s possible. The mind produces reality from what’s possible, not from what it can conceive. And reality remains coherent, because what’s possible, must always be consistent with what was. So if it’s possible for independent thoughts to arise, they will.

Again I must provide a disclaimer, I have no idea if this is anything more than complete hooey. I’m just trying to demonstrate that it’s possible for the conscious mind to produce a reality that looks exactly like this one. I would also conjecture further, that reality looks more like something my conscious mind would create, than something that a loving God would create. I wouldn’t dismiss however, the possibility that such a God created me.

Well, certainly!, what you say is nothing more than complete hooey; what else?, but it’s funny!

For you, if you are really alone, Schrödinger’s cat would be just one of your thoughts, and if quantum physics is true, it would be a partial description of the structure of your thought processes. Therefore, the cat cannot be in any possible state regardless of whether you could conceive of that state beforehand. But if it is not so, then all this is a proof that Schrödinger’s cat is not your thought, but something else.

There is a difference between demonstration and persuasion, and you have not demonstrated your position so far. If you can demonstrate that “it’s possible for the conscious mind to produce a reality that looks exactly like this one” I cannot wait to see your argument.

Now, when you pronounce the term “probability”, what do you mean?

 

[Partinobodycula]

So, you do distinguish some discourses which are different or even opposed to those which constitute your thoughts. And those discourses are not illusions. They are as real as “your own thoughts”, and you experience it.

True, the discourses are real. What’s in question is whether those discourses are the product of another consciousness, or mine.

Also, it is clear that you distinguish “illusions” from “truths”. What are the differences between them, and how is it that you are able to establish such distinction?

I’m not sure what you’re referring to, could you give an example?

For you, if you are really alone, Schrödinger’s cat would be just one of your thoughts

Not exactly. As I attempted to illustrate previously with the analogy of the dreamer, even within my own dreams there’s a distinction between that which I perceive to be me, and that which I perceive to be external to me. Even though both of them exist within my own mind, there’s still a distinction between what’s me, and what’s not me. My thoughts are part and parcel of what I perceive to be me. Schrödinger’s cat isn’t part and parcel of me, it’s perceived to be external to me, it would be inaccurate to describe it as a thought. It would probably be more accurate to refer to the cat as being a manifestation of my conscious mind.

Conscious mind in this instance referring to everything within the scope of my awareness, including both me and the things that I perceive to be external to me. But if you wish to refer to the cat as a thought, feel free to do so.

…and if quantum physics is true, it would be a partial description of the structure of your thought processes.

True

Therefore, the cat cannot be in any possible state regardless of whether you could conceive of that state beforehand.

If I’m understanding your thought here, than this statement is incorrect. Anything not within the scope of my awareness would exist in a state of quantum probability. The act of “observation” simply transforms the cat from a state of quantum probability, to a state of actuality. The cat exists insofar as anything in a quantum state can be said to exist.

I surmise that the conscious mind is an effect. It’s not a cause in and of itself. It must arise from something else. The best candidate that I have for that cause is quantum in nature. Although that too may be an illusion created by the mind in an attempt to explain its own existence.

But if it is not so, then all this is a proof that Schrödinger’s cat is not your thought, but something else.

I’m entirely open to the possibility of something else. I’m not advocating that my proposal is the correct one. In fact it’s highly unlikely. I’m not at all averse to questioning my own preconceptions. I would simply like others to be willing to do the same. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

There is a difference between demonstration and persuasion, and you have not demonstrated your position so far. If you can demonstrate that “it’s possible for the conscious mind to produce a reality that looks exactly like this one” I cannot wait to see your argument.

I don’t believe that I can demonstrate my position, but neither do I believe that you can demonstrate yours. And that’s the point. We all need to examine our own beliefs with the same skeptical eye with which we examine the beliefs of others. I think that if we were all willing to do that, then world would be a much more tolerant place.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I don’t believe that I can demonstrate my position

Absolutely! But if it was not by demonstration, how did you come to be convinced of your solitude? What other kind of discourses -besides demonstrations- convince you and why?

You missed one of my questions: what do you mean when you say “probably”?

 

[Partinobodycula]

But if it was not by demonstration, how did you come to be convinced of your solitude?

First let me clarify. When I speak of my solitude it’s not that I have any definitive evidence to prove that you don’t exist. But what I do have is an inability, due to my mind’s subjective nature, to prove that you do exist. This isn’t due in any way to the nature of you, but is entirely due to the nature of me. I cannot know what I cannot know.

I became convinced of my solitude based upon reason, and the realization that I can never really understand what goes on in the minds of others. Why do men do the things that they do? Why are they so irrational? I can form an intellectual justification, and to some extent I can empathize with their behavior based upon my own experience, but in the end I can never really relate to why an ISIS soldier in Iraq would burn a Syrian pilot to death in a cage. Why a gang of men in India would rape and murder a young woman on a bus. Or why three women in Philadelphia would beat a homeless man to death. There’s an ever-present surrealism to these things.

Ah, but you may counter that these are outliers. That most people don’t behave this way. But does the fact that I can relate more easily with you mean that you’re any less surreal than the ISIS soldier is. There’s still a gulf there that I can’t bridge. My familiarity with you may make me more accepting of you, but in the end you’ll always be an aspect of what’s “Out There”, and thus an enigma that I’ll never be able to remove. I’ll never be certain that you’re anything more than a dream. But one to be cherished none-the-less, for without it, what am I?

You missed one of my questions: what do you mean when you say “probably” (probability)?

When used in relation to quantum mechanics, probability refers to the indeterminate state of a system whose attributes exist only as an aggregate of all possible states.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I became convinced of my solitude based upon reason, and the realization that I can never really understand what goes on in the minds of others. Why do men do the things that they do? Why are they so irrational? I can form an intellectual justification, and to some extent I can empathize with their behavior based upon my own experience, but in the end I can never really relate to why an ISIS soldier in Iraq would burn a Syrian pilot to death in a cage. Why a gang of men in India would rape and murder a young woman on a bus. Or why three women in Philadelphia would beat a homeless man to death. There’s an ever-present surrealism to these things.

Do you perceive yourself as a hundred percent rational being?

 

[Partinobodycula]

Do you perceive yourself as a hundred percent rational being?

No, but there are those who might consider it to be a shortcoming of mine, to be overly analytical.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

No, but there are those who might consider it to be a shortcoming of mine, to be overly analytical.

Well, I agree; it is my impression that you are brilliant, but not 100% rational.

First let me clarify. When I speak of my solitude it’s not that I have any definitive evidence to prove that you don’t exist. But what I do have is an inability, due to my mind’s subjective nature, to prove that you do exist. This isn’t due in any way to the nature of you, but is entirely due to the nature of me. I cannot know what I cannot know.

I became convinced of my solitude based upon reason, and the realization that I can never really understand what goes on in the minds of others. Why do men do the things that they do? Why are they so irrational? I can form an intellectual justification, and to some extent I can empathize with their behavior based upon my own experience, but in the end I can never really relate to why an ISIS soldier in Iraq would burn a Syrian pilot to death in a cage. Why a gang of men in India would rape and murder a young woman on a bus. Or why three women in Philadelphia would beat a homeless man to death. There’s an ever-present surrealism to these things.

Ah, but you may counter that these are outliers. That most people don’t behave this way. But does the fact that I can relate more easily with you mean that you’re any less surreal than the ISIS soldier is. There’s still a gulf there that I can’t bridge. My familiarity with you may make me more accepting of you, but in the end you’ll always be an aspect of what’s “Out There”, and thus an enigma that I’ll never be able to remove. I’ll never be certain that you’re anything more than a dream. But one to be cherished none-the-less, for without it, what am I?

So, your thought process was like this:

1. 
   *]I feel my inability to demonstrate that others exist.
   *]The actions of some men seem irrational to me.
   *]The actions of some men seem rational to me.
   *]Either rational or irrational, I cannot demonstrate that others exist.
   
   Which, if you pay some attention, can be reduced to the first statement: You feel your inability to demonstrate that others exist. However, your feeling is not enough to support your solipsism: You feel the same inability to demonstrate that others do not exist.
   
   Therefore, you haven’t answered my question: “if it was not by demonstration, how did you come to be convinced of your solitude? What other kind of discourses -besides demonstrations- convince you and why?”
   
   If you do not have any reason to sustain your solipsism, your decision to remain in that position is entirely irrational.
   
   You also seem to think that not knowing what goes on in the minds of others is relevant for your solipsism, but you don’t know all that goes on in your own mind. If you think that your ignorance about the content of the mind of others is compelling to think they might not exist, you should be compelled also to think that you yourself are illusory; which is equally irrational.

 

[Partinobodycula]

So, your thought process was like this:

1. I feel my inability to demonstrate that others exist.

It’s not a feeling, it’s a realization. It’s the realization that I can never be sure. I can’t demonstrate that you don’t exist, but I can’t demonstrate that you do exist either. And because of this, the only thing that I can be sure of, is that I can’t be sure. And it’s the fact that I can’t be sure that makes me a solipsist. And it should by extension make you a solipsist too.

1. The actions of some men seem irrational to me.
2. The actions of some men seem rational to me.

It’s not really a question of one or the other, rather it’s a matter of degree. The murderer seems more surreal because his actions seem more surreal. But he doesn’t exist in isolation. He exists within a world of violence, and indifference, and injustice. And it’s this world of suffering that seems surreal, not just the outliers within it. I can’t embrace the pieces without embracing the whole. Would that I could ignore the inhumanity of the few, but I can’t. I simply accept and appreciate the world for what it is. I don’t have to know that it’s real, to know that what I gain from it is real.

You feel your inability to demonstrate that others exist. However, your feeling is not enough to support your solipsism:

All that I need, is to be unable to demonstrate that others exist. To invalidate my solipsism it would be necessary for someone to demonstrate that they do.

Therefore, you haven’t answered my question: "if it was not by demonstration, how did you come to be convinced of your solitude?

As I pointed out, demonstration isn’t necessary to prove solipsism, it’s only necessary to disprove it. I can’t prove that Santa Claus doesn’t exist either, but that doesn’t mean he does. The only thing that I can demonstrate, is that I am.

If you do not have any reason to sustain your solipsism, your decision to remain in that position is entirely irrational.

(At the risk of becoming repetitious like Marco Rubio) Until such time as it can be demonstrated that others exist, solipsism is the only rational position.

You also seem to think that not knowing what goes on in the minds of others is relevant for your solipsism, but you don’t know all that goes on in your own mind.

Not knowing how my mind works is different than not knowing whether you have one.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

The solipsism where there is a greater force behind the mind that generates thoughts into it, controlling the situation and what I know, discoveries that are found out, etc. etc.

And now, Upgrade25, what do you think having known the kind of answers that an individual who says he is a solipsist gives? Is it possible to refute him? He would have to admit that he has been refuted; and if he was an entirely rational being he would admit it. But if he is afraid of what other individuals could think about him (notice that he denies their existences though), he will respond whatever comes to his mind, stressing that he is rational, but carefully avoiding rational arguments, to give the appearance (again: notice he denies others’ existences) that he is right.

He can speak about quantum physics without comprehending it, and without remembering that it refers to physical entities (whose existence he denies). Still, he doesn’t have any doubt about it. He is so sure of it that he even develops some conclusions from it to support his solipsism! (isn’t this absurd enough?).

We can realize that we have a variety of modes of experience:

1. 
   *]We have fugitive experiences of our self.
   *]We have constant sensitive experiences of our surroundings.
   *]We have constant intellectual experience of our surroundings.
   *]We have rational experience of our conceptual framework.
   *]We have aesthetic experience of beautiful objects…
   
   Our solipsist wants to have a demonstration (a rational experience -#4-) of another self, such that , through it, he can obtain a constant direct experience of the other self (similar or identical to #1) as if it was himself! Isn’t it obvious that if you have a direct experience of a self then it is yourself, not another’s self!?
   
   But a solipsist has his irrational demands.
   
   Offer him sensitive experiences of your presence; he will say “maybe I am dreaming”. Tell him about the intellectual products that he did not produce, but still are there in front of him: he will contemplate them and will pronounce “perhaps I have produced them without noticing my act, or maybe all of it is a fantasy of mine”. Make the observation that he doesn’t obtain the certitude of his own existence via demonstration, and ask him how can he be so irrational as to request a demonstration of the existence of others; he will just insist that he cannot be more rational on his requests. Conduct a rational inquiry into his thought processes; he will react showing his sentimentalist tenderness and pretending that he cares for the sufferings of the world (sic!).
   
   How can it be that such absurdity disturbs you in such a way that you look for a refutation of it? As Aristoteles said, one has the right to stop a discussion with an individual like this; and I am using my right this very moment.

 

[Bradski]

We are not too far from being able to generate quite realistic virtual worlds. In a hundred years, or a thousand, or let’s take it to a million, our abilities would have advanced to an extent which would make these virtual worlds indistinguishable from reality.

If there was just one virtual world, then it is a 50:50 chance that you are in it. But there must be vastly more than one, so the chances are very good indeed that you don’t actually exist. That is, solipsism is valid.

Just as a thought experiment, if you are not actually real but live in a virtual world, can you cate other virtual worlds in which people think they actually exist? And can they do the same, ad infinitum?

If so, it’s almost a certainty that you don’t exist.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

We are not too far from being able to generate quite realistic virtual worlds. In a hundred years, or a thousand, or let’s take it to a million, our abilities would have advanced to an extent which would make these virtual worlds indistinguishable from reality.

If there was just one virtual world, then it is a 50:50 chance that you are in it. But there must be vastly more than one, so the chances are very good indeed that you don’t actually exist. That is, solipsism is valid.

Just as a thought experiment, if you are not actually real but live in a virtual world, can you cate other virtual worlds in which people think they actually exist? And can they do the same, ad infinitum?

If so, it’s almost a certainty that you don’t exist.

If what you say is correct, then the experience of our self (the “realization” of our self, as Partinobodycula says) would have no strength to say “I am!”. But Partinobodycula is 100% sure that he is.

Perhaps he is a virtual solipsist among an infinite amount of other virtual solipsists.

 

[Bradski]

If what you say is correct, then the experience of our self (the “realization” of our self, as Partinobodycula says) would have no strength to say “I am!”. But Partinobodycula is 100% sure that he is.

Let’s say I am an avatar. Would anything I say be different from someone who wasn’t?

What Parti is in effect saying is that none of us know if we are or we are not. But let me say that solipsism, as far as I am concerned, is a meaningless concept. I will live my life as if I am real and everything else is as well.

As far as I can see, everyone else, including Parti, does the same.