How can we know other people other than ourselves exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Sinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Linusthe2nd said:
I and others have given you valid arguments but you are not disposed to accept them. And since you have stated that this ’ idea ’ began in early childhood, that it just popped into your head for no reason, and that you have not been able to shake it since, would seem to indicate a kind of psychological block somewhere. You have to realize that not many people have the same ’ idea. ’ That might indicate that there really is no " argument " which will bring you back to reality. This might indicate a psychological problem.

Pax
Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Or I simply realize that so much of people’s lives are based on assumptions which cannot be proven to be true or false. Objective truth exists but there are few instances where it can be known certainly. Existence being reality is the basic certain truth that I know. Most everything else is just subjective experience which may or may not indicate an underlying objective reality. But there is no way to test for the veracity of one’s experiences which leads to certain knowledge of an external world.

You say that you have given me valid arguments against this. But I don’t see any that are not based on assumptions.
 
blase6 said:
Or I simply realize that so much of people’s lives are based on assumptions which cannot be proven to be true or false. Objective truth exists but there are few instances where it can be known certainly. Existence being reality is the basic certain truth that I know. Most everything else is just subjective experience which may or may not indicate an underlying objective reality. But there is no way to test for the veracity of one’s experiences which leads to certain knowledge of an external world.

You say that you have given me valid arguments against this. But I don’t see any that are not based on assumptions.
Click to expand...
Sorry you disagree.

Pax
Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
I and others have given you valid arguments but you are not disposed to accept them.
Click to expand...
Forgive me for intruding, but the idea that any valid arguments disproving solipsism have been presented in this thread, is simply incorrect. With all due respect to Wittgenstein et al, any arguments purporting to do so are specious at best.

I realize that I should have addressed any arguments as they arose, but as a solipsist I’ve grown a bit weary of answering the same challenges ad nauseam, and so I tend to sit quietly on the sidelines during such discussions. In truth it’s a bit of an effort for me to interact on this forum at all.

If you do however have an argument that you find particularly convincing please present it again, and I’ll address it. I’d hate for you to be under the illusion that solipsism can be refuted.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
I
  1. Have faith that the people who live on this planet with you are not illusions…
Click to expand...
You don’t need faith that others are not illusions.

All you need is beer and pizza and faith in the Patriots. 😃
 
blase6 said:
Or I simply realize that so much of people’s lives are based on assumptions which cannot be proven to be true or false. Objective truth exists but there are few instances where it can be known certainly. Existence being reality is the basic certain truth that I know. Most everything else is just subjective experience which may or may not indicate an underlying objective reality. But there is no way to test for the veracity of one’s experiences which leads to certain knowledge of an external world.

You say that you have given me valid arguments against this. But I don’t see any that are not based on assumptions.
Click to expand...
Maybe we can rest assured that some things we know are certain beyond a reasonable doubt, and other things are even certain beyond a shadow of a doubt.

As in: Cogito; ergo sum.

In some matters proof is really not needed, since intuition is more direct and convincing.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Maybe we can rest assured that some things we know are certain beyond a reasonable doubt, and other things are even certain beyond a shadow of a doubt.

As in: Cogito; ergo sum.

In some matters proof is really not needed, since intuition is more direct and convincing.
Click to expand...
Since intuition cannot bring certain knowledge of an external world, it is not sufficient for me to think that I know the external world exists certainly. I can only say that the external world probably exists because I have a good amount of evidence for it.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
In some matters proof is really not needed, since intuition is more direct and convincing.
Click to expand...
I would argue that many of the problems of the world are the direct result of the fact that intuition is convincing.

Far too often men mistake intuition for reason.
 
blase6 said:
Since intuition cannot bring certain knowledge of an external world, it is not sufficient for me to think that I know the external world exists certainly. I can only say that the external world probably exists because I have a good amount of evidence for it.
Click to expand...
Epistemologically speaking i agree that for all we know the universe is just a hologram.

However it does not follow from this fact that it is reasonable to doubt the external reality of the universe.
 
ChainBreaker said:
Epistemologically speaking i agree that for all we know the universe is just a hologram.

However it does not follow from this fact that it is reasonable to doubt the external reality of the universe.
Click to expand...
Reasonable does not equal certain. No matter how much we would like to think so.
 
Hi Ben and Blase6:

Just for me to understand: is there anything you would say “This I know”?

Best regards
JuanFlorencio
 
JuanFlorencio said:
Hi Ben and Blase6:

Just for me to understand: is there anything you would say “This I know”?

Best regards
JuanFlorencio
Click to expand...
Existence.
I have thoughts.
I experience sensory (name removed by moderator)ut/feelings.
I process information.

That is as far as I can get for what I know certainly.
 
blase6 said:
Reasonable does not equal certain. No matter how much we would like to think so.
Click to expand...
It does not equal certain, but if you are arguing that unless external reality is certain we cannot reasonably think it to be external, then i fail to understand what objective grounds you have to be certain of this.
 
blase6 said:
Since intuition cannot bring certain knowledge of an external world, it is not sufficient for me to think that I know the external world exists certainly. I can only say that the external world probably exists because I have a good amount of evidence for it.
Click to expand...
You may be confusing knowledge with intuition. Knowledge requires proof. Intuition does not.

Intuition is the immediate experience of a truth without having to prove it.

Einstein experienced the intuition of relativity. The knowledge that flowed from that intuition did require proof, yes, and the proof verified came later. But the intuition came before the proof. We intuit (experience) our own existence without the need to prove it. This is where Descartes went wrong. He put proof before experience. He said, “I think, therefore I am.” That is not proof that he was. Proof that he was was in the fact that he experienced his own thoughts before he could marshal them into a faulty proof.

If he had said, “I am, and therefore I can think,” he would have been on solid logical ground, because our intuitive consciousness of our existence precedes all other consciousness.
 
blase6 said:
Existence.
I have thoughts.
I experience sensory (name removed by moderator)ut/feelings.
I process information.

That is as far as I can get for what I know certainly.
Click to expand...
Thank you Blase6!

Let me consider Existance first. When you say: I know existence? What do you mean? Is it you, or something else?
 
Ok so I had a thought at church tonight…

Regardless if there is an external reality or not, we can be faithful that the Catholic Church is infallible, and we are obligated to have faith it is an external entity.

If we don’t have faith that it is, it is a mortal sin that would land one in hell if done with full knowledge and consent (same applies to other gravely evil actions)…or we will go to Heaven if we have faith and follow its teachings.

Even it the church was an illusion, we are still, in a way, obligated to have faith that it isn’t, because if we don’t, it will be a mortal sin according to the illusion and we will go to an illusion of hell if we choose to disbelieve its real…or…we will go to the illusion of Heaven if we do believe and following the unreal teachings.

The evidence stacks up, whether its a hoax or not, that there is objective consequences in this regards. For example; we know that if we drop a ball, the objective consequence will be it will fall to the ground, whether it is an illusion or not.

Any thoughts on this?
 
Charlemagne_III said:
You may be confusing knowledge with intuition. Knowledge requires proof. Intuition does not.

Intuition is the immediate experience of a truth without having to prove it.

Einstein experienced the intuition of relativity. The knowledge that flowed from that intuition did require proof, yes, and the proof verified came later. But the intuition came before the proof. We intuit (experience) our own existence without the need to prove it. This is where Descartes went wrong. He put proof before experience. He said, “I think, therefore I am.” That is not proof that he was. Proof that he was was in the fact that he experienced his own thoughts before he could marshal them into a faulty proof.

If he had said, “I am, and therefore I can think,” he would have been on solid logical ground, because our intuitive consciousness of our existence precedes all other consciousness.
Click to expand...
An experience is not equal to certain truth of an external reality. Since an experience is known through internal experience only, an external world cannot be certainly known.
 
ChainBreaker said:
It does not equal certain, but if you are arguing that unless external reality is certain we cannot reasonably think it to be external, then i fail to understand what objective grounds you have to be certain of this.
Click to expand...
I am showing how absolutely certain knowledge is very limited, despite what most people think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top