Catholic Refutation of Solipsism

[Upgrade25]

I don’t have one. Shoot away, fellow CAFers.

 

[Rhubarb]

1. If Solipsism is true, then there is no external world. (Assumption)
2. I have a hand. (Assumption)
3. I have another hand. (Assumption)
4. If I have a hand or another hand, then there is an external world. (Assumption)
5. There is an external world. (Modus ponens. 2,3,4)
   C. Solipsism is not true. (Modus tollens. 1, 5) QED

 

[Partinobodycula]

1. If Solipsism is true, then there is no external world. (Assumption)
2. I have a hand. (Assumption)
3. I have another hand. (Assumption)
4. If I have a hand or another hand, then there is an external world. (Assumption)
5. There is an external world. (Modus ponens. 2,3,4)
   C. Solipsism is not true. (Modus tollens. 1, 5) QED

Well that seems a bit silly. Why don’t you just simplify it to:

1. If I have a hand then solipsism isn’t true.

Now all that you have to do is prove that you have a hand.

Good luck.

 

[e_c]

Our understanding is limited and discursive. This implies many things… Can you see a few ways out now? Give it a go!

 

[Rhubarb]

Well that seems a bit silly. Why don’t you just simplify it to:

1. If I have a hand then solipsism isn’t true.

Now all that you have to do is prove that you have a hand.

Good luck.

It’s not my argument. It’s GE Moore’s Common Sense Argument. The crux is that a solipsist will have a rougher road to demonstrate that we don’t have bodies rather than us demonstrating we do.

 

[John_Lazarus]

Well, I know the external world exists because it’s on Wikipedia.

 

[Partinobodycula]

It’s not my argument. It’s GE Moore’s Common Sense Argument.

Duly noted.

The crux is that a solipsist will have a rougher road to demonstrate that we don’t have bodies rather than us demonstrating we do.

Except that the argument then presumes that absent definitive evidence to the contrary, the premise in which my body exists is superior to the premise in which it doesn’t. The epistemological solipsist would point out that such supremacy is unwarranted.

As to who would have the rougher road in demonstrating their case, I believe you would find that the contest isn’t as one sided as Mr. Moore presumes it to be.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Well, I know the external world exists because it’s on Wikipedia.

Touche’

 

[Rhubarb]

Duly noted. Except that the argument then presumes that absent definitive evidence to the contrary, the premise in which my body exists is superior to the premise in which it doesn’t. The epistemological solipsist would point out that such supremacy is unwarranted.

As to who would have the rougher road in demonstrating their case, I believe you would find that the contest isn’t as one sided as Mr. Moore presumes it to be.

Well. What IS the evidence that your body doesn’t exist? According to Moore, common sense and pretty much everything we know about ourselves and our surroundings indicate that we have a body. The only assumptions of his argument that are truly challengable are 2 and 3. And it’s almost laughable to do so. (All things being equal, of course)

Considering solipsism is usually brought out as a joke at worst, and a curiosity at best, in most philosophy departments, I’m going to have to lean towards the contest being pretty one-sided. But I would love to consider more arguments for solipsism.

 

[e_c]

I remember that argument being from Moore now!

It’s a trippy thing to deal with. Moore seems to beg the question. But we are getting to the very first steps of the philosophical act, where not doing that becomes challenging.

No takers on my invitation to run with my premises on understanding?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Our understanding is limited and discursive. This implies many things… Can you see a few ways out now? Give it a go!

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.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Considering solipsism is usually brought out as a joke at worst, and a curiosity at best, in most philosophy departments, I’m going to have to lean towards the contest being pretty one-sided.

I will concede that solipsism is summarily dismissed in most, if not all, serious discussions of philosophy. But hopefully you’ll concede that disregarding it doesn’t constitute disproving it. Perhaps you could present an argument that’s a bit more substantive than basically, “It looks real, therefore it is real”.

But I would love to consider more arguments for solipsism.

Solipsism in its essence isn’t about the nature of reality. It’s about the nature of the conscious mind. It’s about the mind’s inability to discern an external reality, from an internal illusion. Not because it’s ignorant, or irrational, or psychotic, but because it’s egocentric. It’s always dealing with a reality that’s either created or recreated within itself, and it can never be sure which. So it’s not really a question of whether epistemological solipsism is true, it’s about whether one chooses to accept that it’s true.

Well. What IS the evidence that your body doesn’t exist?

If external reality does exist, then one may be able to argue that it should be capable of producing effects which the mind is incapable of producing on its own. Contrary to JuanFlorencio’s post, no such effects are evident. The mind sees what the mind expects to see. The mind never sees what it doesn’t expect to see. However, this doesn’t prove that the mind is the creator of reality, only that reality is consistent with consciousness. Unfortunately the mind will always see a reality that’s consistent with its own existence, whether it’s real or not.

So perhaps the best evidence that my body doesn’t exist, is that the mind sees only what the mind expects to see.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

If external reality does exist, then one may be able to argue that it should be capable of producing effects which the mind is incapable of producing on its own. Contrary to JuanFlorencio’s post, no such effects are evident. The mind sees what the mind expects to see. The mind never sees what it doesn’t expect to see. However, this doesn’t prove that the mind is the creator of reality, only that reality is consistent with consciousness. Unfortunately the mind will always see a reality that’s consistent with its own existence, whether it’s real or not.

So perhaps the best evidence that my body doesn’t exist, is that the mind sees only what the mind expects to see.

One of my daughter’s teachers had the same belief: he said that when Columbus came to the new world crossing the ocean in his ships, the natives were unable to see them: As ships weren’t consistent with their existence, they didn’t expect to see them. They didn’t expect to see the weapons that the conquerors carried with them; therefore they were blasted without noticing the source of the danger. They did not expect to see horses, so, when their enemies came mounted on those animals, they saw them like powerful creatures who flew without wings. They thought that those beings had the power of magic to their side. Magic was consistent with their existence; therefore, they expected it, and they succumbed to it.

Clever, right?

Haven’t you ever be surprised by something? You would be unable to produce something that surprises you! But I guess not everybody has to be surprised during his whole lifetime. Everything is familiar, obvious, evident, and expected to some people…, I guess.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Haven’t you ever be surprised by something? You would be unable to produce something that surprises you!

Of course I’ve been surprised. That’s not what I was referring to when I said that the mind sees what the mind expects to see. The mind simply expects to see a past and a future that are consistent with the present. That’s all. Given those two things the mind will naturally produce everything that it sees around it. It will even produce the unexpected from whole cloth. The mind doesn’t expect to know everything. In fact it expects not to know everything. All it expects is that what will be, will be consistent with what is. When I roll a die I don’t expect to know what number will come up, I only expect that the future will be consistent with the present. Any constraints upon future outcomes are determined only by present conditions.

We humans tend to think that the present will always be consistent with the past, because the past preexisted the present, but quantum physics suggests that we have the sequence wrong. It’s not the past that determines the present, it’s the present that determines the past, in the same manner that it determines the future. Thus if one simply begins with the concept of “I am”, everything else naturally emerges around it. The conscious mind isn’t the product of reality. Reality is the product of the conscious mind.

Of course I can’t prove any of this. But which seems more likely, that the world with all of its pain and suffering was created by a loving God, or that it was created by me?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Of course I can’t prove any of this. But which seems more likely, that the world with all of its pain and suffering was created by a loving God, or that it was created by me?

None!

 

[inocente]

Perhaps you could present an argument that’s a bit more substantive than basically, “It looks real, therefore it is real”.

This isn’t an argument as such, more a thought experiment. Place two kilos of plastic explosive between your knees, press the detonator, and then report back on whether you’re still convinced nothing outside your mind exists.

(Do not try this at home.)

 

[Partinobodycula]

This isn’t an argument as such, more a thought experiment. Place two kilos of plastic explosive between your knees, press the detonator, and then report back on whether you’re still convinced nothing outside your mind exists.

(Do not try this at home.)

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.

 

[inocente]

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.

I was more interested in whether you think you’d have the courage of your convictions, and actually carry out such an experiment for real.

For instance, would you call a conference of your family and friends beforehand to tell them of your planned experiment? According to your theory, they only exist in your mind, but if you’re wrong and they are real people, real people who love you and would grieve for you, then they surely have a right to know that you died trying to prove a philosophical conjecture.

(Remembering that I don’t know the state of your mind and whether you’re clinically depressed. If you ever do have thoughts of proving your theory, then go see your doctor, even though you might think the doctor is only in your mind. Seriously bro.)

 

[Rohzek]

There isn’t an argument for or against solipsism.

 

[Partinobodycula]

I was more interested in whether you think you’d have the courage of your convictions, and actually carry out such an experiment for real.

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.

There isn’t an argument for or against solipsism.

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.