Lets put an end to solipsism fears on this thread

[seagal]

Okay, but if solipsism were real, wouldn’t we be able to change our future by just changing our thoughts?

There are people who *don’t *subscribe to solipsism who believe that.

 

[truetofaith]

There are people who *don’t *subscribe to solipsism who believe that.

It’s called “Positive Thinking.”

 

[CrossofChrist]

Not that these will be super comprehensive responses, but I’ll give it a shot.

1. How is it more logical and rational to believe that we are one of many other conscious people, than to believe our consciousness is the only thing that is real?

Because we interact with others who give us something we don’t have. If it is just our own mind that exists, love can’t exist except in some weird egocentric way. If love isn’t rational then humanity is in a world of hurt.

1. How is an external world with other people a self-evident truth, and not vice versa?

Think about this question: Who are you?

If I took a sledgehammer and smashed your leg, would you tell me to stop hitting you? I would certainly hope so! And so you recognize that you are a being that is made of matter, and can sense material objects with your senses.

Solipsism gets disproven really fast when life “gets real”. Others brought up taxes.

Encountering beauty within the world, including the love that comes from others, also gives us an acute sense of the goodness of an external world.

1. What is a good refutation of “the voices of other people could possibly be just a form of our own subconscious thinking?”

?

For example; if someone says “Strawberries are red”, that would be my mind ‘thinking’ “Strawberries are red”

What if someone disagrees with what you think?

1. Is solipsism possible if the senses are an illusion but reason is not?

Why trust reason if we don’t have senses? For reason to express itself it needs language or realities it can point to, neither of which is possible for solipsism.

There’s no way to “prove” logically that the world is rational. But exposing yourself to reality sure does prove it experientially in a much more profound way than any proof gives you of anything else.

1. Why is it assumed that just because we are the only existing entity, that makes us God?

Can’t tell you.

1. Why is it assumed that we have to know everything if we are the only existing entity?

No information would exist anywhere else if only you exist. So logically, you have all the information. If there was other information, it would have to come from nowhere.

1. Why is it assumed we created everything if we are the only existing entity?

There is nothing else that exists from whence it could come.

1. Ultimately for something to be true from my perspective, I have to ‘believe’ in it. Can this refute an external world in any way since all conclusions I make about life come from my own brain and reason, not anybody elses?

No. God’s grace comes from God, and he gives us conclusions to make about life. So not “all conclusions I make about life come from my own brain and reason”. And it doesn’t refute an external world.

1. Why is it assumed that someone’s solipsism existence had a beginning?

Why do people assume solipsism at all?

1. Why is it assumed that “Just the ability to question if other life exists, is proof that other life exists, because you would have no basis of reality to ask that” ?

You would have everything if no other life could exist apart from you. It would all be in your mind. So if there really can be something (and not nothing) apart from your mind, then there must be something external to yourself.

1. Why is it assumed that we wouldn’t be able to function in an illusion? We seem to function well within a dream (we are able to move about, communicate, etc. in the dream)

Is there really a point to functioning if it is all in your mind? What would “functioning” even mean? Destruction would be equivalent to progression–why is good better than evil if it is all an illusion in your mind.

Those are 11 questions I hope can have good answers to them, these are usually the ones I ask to myself all the time.

I would be happy to hear those too, along with anybody else who struggles with this fear.

“Take courage; it is I!” “Be not afraid!” – Jesus Christ

 

[GEddie]

It’s called “Positive Thinking.”

Which isn’t really thinking. IMNAAHO.

 

[triumphguy]

Okay, but if solipsism were real, wouldn’t we be able to change our future by just changing our thoughts?

People make millions selling books, and programs to “help” people do this very thing.

Eg., T Harv Eker:

• Rich people believe “I create my life.” Poor people believe “Life happens to me.”
• Rich people are committed to being rich. Poor people want to be rich.
• Rich people think big. Poor people think small.
• Nothing has meaning except for the meaning you give it.

Tony Robbins:

• We can change our lives. We can do, have, and be exactly what we wish.
• You see, it’s never the environment; it’s never the events of our lives, but the meaning we attach to the events - how we interpret them - that shapes who we are today and who we’ll become tomorrow.

From the book, “The Secret”

• If you can think about what you want in your mind, and make that your dominant thought, you will bring it into your life.
• The law of attraction is the law of creation. Quantum physicists tell us that the entire Universe emerged from thought!

 

[ChurchSuffering]

From the book, “The Secret”
The law of attraction is the law of creation. Quantum physicists tell us that the entire Universe emerged from thought!

And God said “let there be light!”

 

[triumphguy]

And God said “let there be light!”

When God says it, it’s not solipsism it’s creation.

That’s the difference between God and us.

 

[MPat]

THIS THREAD IS NOT A DEBATE ON WHETHER IT EXISTS OR NOT, NOR IS FOR PROVIDING SKEPTICISM ON REALISM.

PLEASE DON’T POST ANY COMMENTS THAT WILL BE SKEPTICAL OF THE CONCEPT OF AN EXTERNAL WORLD AND OTHER MINDS, NO MATTER HOW COMPELLED YOU ARE TO TYPE THE POST.

Actually, that does make things a bit harder… Perhaps the most persuasive argument starts from the solipsist claiming that “We cannot know if anything else exists.” and failing to give a persuasive answer how he knows that.

Another argument starts with solipsist claiming that he doesn’t want to make assumptions that are not perfectly certain, and failing to show how he can support the assumptions that his short-term memory and reason are not malfunctioning (without those assumptions all arguments - including “I think, therefore I exist.” are invalidated).

1. How is it more logical and rational to believe that we are one of many other conscious people, than to believe our consciousness is the only thing that is real?

Because solipsism undermines itself. For example, as I have mentioned, a solipsist cannot explain how he knows that “We cannot know if anything else exists.” or how he knows that his short-term memory and reason are not malfunctioning. Thus solipsism invalidates arguments in favour of itself.

Also, we can form a modified Pascal’s Wager and see that it is better to assume that other people exist, unless we can prove otherwise.

Another option (used by Descartes, if I remember correctly) is to use Ontological argument to show that God exists and then - that He, being good, wouldn’t let you be deceived that much (we can also skip this step, as existence of God itself is obviously incompatible with solipsism).

1. Why is it assumed that just because we are the only existing entity, that makes us God?

I guess it would make sense to call someone who has created all that exists “God”.

 

[blase6]

Actually, that does make things a bit harder… Perhaps the most persuasive argument starts from the solipsist claiming that “We cannot know if anything else exists.” and failing to give a persuasive answer how he knows that.

Another argument starts with solipsist claiming that he doesn’t want to make assumptions that are not perfectly certain, and failing to show how he can support the assumptions that his short-term memory and reason are not malfunctioning (without those assumptions all arguments - including “I think, therefore I exist.” are invalidated).

Because solipsism undermines itself. For example, as I have mentioned, a solipsist cannot explain how he knows that “We cannot know if anything else exists.” or how he knows that his short-term memory and reason are not malfunctioning. Thus solipsism invalidates arguments in favour of itself.

Also, we can form a modified Pascal’s Wager and see that it is better to assume that other people exist, unless we can prove otherwise.

Another option (used by Descartes, if I remember correctly) is to use Ontological argument to show that God exists and then - that He, being good, wouldn’t let you be deceived that much (we can also skip this step, as existence of God itself is obviously incompatible with solipsism).

I guess it would make sense to call someone who has created all that exists “God”.

The point is that one’s own thoughts are a basic starting point to determine all other certain truths. The idea that “one’s memory or reason is flawed” is a separate idea which comes after one is thinking, so it cannot be known certainly.

 

[MPat]

The point is that one’s own thoughts are a basic starting point to determine all other certain truths. The idea that “one’s memory or reason is flawed” is a separate idea which comes after one is thinking, so it cannot be known certainly.

Did I say it can be known certainly? I said that if you insist on perfect certainty, you must know that your memory and reason do work. If you do not know that with perfect certainty, you won’t be able to prove anything with more certainty. Anything. Even “I think, therefore I exist.” will be invalidated: you won’t know that you got a premise “I think.” (maybe it was “I do not think.”, but you are misremembering what you thought a second ago?) and you won’t know that A & (A => B) => B is valid reasoning. Then even solipsism will be too reckless for you.

Another option is simply to assume that your memory and reason work “well enough”. But then, why can’t you add an assumption that your senses also work “well enough”?

 

[blase6]

Did I say it can be known certainly? I said that if you insist on perfect certainty, you must know that your memory and reason do work. If you do not know that with perfect certainty, you won’t be able to prove anything with more certainty. Anything. Even “I think, therefore I exist.” will be invalidated: you won’t know that you got a premise “I think.” (maybe it was “I do not think.”, but you are misremembering what you thought a second ago?) and you won’t know that A & (A => B) => B is valid reasoning. Then even solipsism will be too reckless for you.

Another option is simply to assume that your memory and reason work “well enough”. But then, why can’t you add an assumption that your senses also work “well enough”?

You are right. I don’t know for certain if my reasoning process corresponds to reality. But since I directly experience myself and my reasoning, I know that they in themselves exist certainly.

 

[MPat]

You are right. I don’t know for certain if my reasoning process corresponds to reality.

I didn’t say that. I said you cannot show that they are reliable with perfect certainty, while keeping solipsism.

But since I directly experience myself and my reasoning, I know that they in themselves exist certainly.

You know? How? If experience without argument is enough, it would be enough for the external world as well. And if it does need an argument, it would be like this:

1. I directly experience myself and my reason.
2. Anything I directly experience exists.
3. Therefore, I exist and so does my reason.

Yet, if your memory and reason could work badly, maybe the premises are wrong, and you are just misremembering them? Or maybe it is not an example of valid reasoning? And where did you get those premises anyway? How do you know you experience yourself and your reason “directly”? What makes you think that anything that you experience directly exists? And once again - the answers must be perfectly certain and consistent with solipsism. Otherwise it falls.

 

[blase6]

I didn’t say that. I said you cannot show that they are reliable with perfect certainty, while keeping solipsism.

You know? How? If experience without argument is enough, it would be enough for the external world as well. And if it does need an argument, it would be like this:

1. I directly experience myself and my reason.
2. Anything I directly experience exists.
3. Therefore, I exist and so does my reason.

Yet, if your memory and reason could work badly, maybe the premises are wrong, and you are just misremembering them? Or maybe it is not an example of valid reasoning? And where did you get those premises anyway? How do you know you experience yourself and your reason “directly”? What makes you think that anything that you experience directly exists? And once again - the answers must be perfectly certain and consistent with solipsism. Otherwise it falls.

Obviously, I know that I am having thoughts and experiencing an external world, so I often just assume that they are real in arguments, so that I am on the same level as others. But I don’t know if my thoughts are really initiated by me, or are put into my head. Either way, I still know they are real by themselves, because I am experiencing them.

It is the same for the external world. I know that it exists as part of my experience certainly, but I do not know beyond that.

 

[MPat]

But I don’t know if my thoughts are really initiated by me, or are put into my head.

In this case that does not matter.

Either way, I still know they are real by themselves, because I am experiencing them.

That doesn’t look clear enough. So, are you saying that you can have certain knowledge of that without any argument?

Still, you cannot know that “thoughts” are real in that way, unless you assume that memory is not unreliable. Only “thought” (the current one) is available.

Anyway, you were saying that you have knowledge of yourself and your reasoning. Perhaps you meant “thoughts” by “reasoning”. But what about that “yourself”?

 

[triumphguy]

What about common sense?

 

[blase6]

In this case that does not matter.

That doesn’t look clear enough. So, are you saying that you can have certain knowledge of that without any argument?

Still, you cannot know that “thoughts” are real in that way, unless you assume that memory is not unreliable. Only “thought” (the current one) is available.

Anyway, you were saying that you have knowledge of yourself and your reasoning. Perhaps you meant “thoughts” by “reasoning”. But what about that “yourself”?

I am aware that the very idea of “I” is reflexive, and thus, may not be accurate to reality. But as a word it refers to that which is certainly known, as a “direct” receiver of experiences to which all other persons, if real, are secondary.

 

[MPat]

I am aware that the very idea of “I” is reflexive, and thus, may not be accurate to reality. But as a word it refers to that which is certainly known, as a “direct” receiver of experiences to which all other persons, if real, are secondary.

I am afraid I do not understand what you wrote…

“*dea of ‘I’ is reflexive”, “accurate to reality”?

But as a word it refers to that which is certainly known, as a “direct” receiver of experiences

That does not explain if an argument is necessary. For example, Descartes thought he did need one.

receiver of experiences to which all other persons, if real, are secondary.

“Secondary”?

So, to reword the argument once again… It starts by asking the solipsist: “Do you think you need an argument to show that you exist? Yes or no?”.

There is no other option. “I don’t know.” forfeits certainty of “I exist.” (and solipsism) just as certainly, as “Yes.”.

Then, if the solipsist says he does need an argument, he will end up unable to provide one without assuming reliability of reason and memory.

And if he says he does not need one, he can only support “I exist.” with “It’s obvious.”. Anything else (like all those things that have been written here), are arguments (just bad ones) and he would have said they are unnecessary. Yet if “It’s obvious.” is sufficient to show that “I” exists, it will also be sufficient to show that external world exists.

As you can see, there is no reasonable way to keep solipsism.

Although I guess that we should stop debating given this request by original poster:

THIS THREAD IS NOT A DEBATE ON WHETHER IT EXISTS OR NOT

, NOR IS FOR PROVIDING SKEPTICISM ON REALISM.

PLEASE DON’T POST ANY COMMENTS THAT WILL BE SKEPTICAL OF THE CONCEPT OF AN EXTERNAL WORLD AND OTHER MINDS, NO MATTER HOW COMPELLED YOU ARE TO TYPE THE POST.*

 

[blase6]

I am afraid I do not understand what you wrote…

“*dea of ‘I’ is reflexive”, “accurate to reality”?

That does not explain if an argument is necessary. For example, Descartes thought he did need one.

“Secondary”?

So, to reword the argument once again… It starts by asking the solipsist: “Do you think you need an argument to show that you exist? Yes or no?”.

There is no other option. “I don’t know.” forfeits certainty of “I exist.” (and solipsism) just as certainly, as “Yes.”.

Then, if the solipsist says he does need an argument, he will end up unable to provide one without assuming reliability of reason and memory.

And if he says he does not need one, he can only support “I exist.” with “It’s obvious.”. Anything else (like all those things that have been written here), are arguments (just bad ones) and he would have said they are unnecessary. Yet if “It’s obvious.” is sufficient to show that “I” exists, it will also be sufficient to show that external world exists.

As you can see, there is no reasonable way to keep solipsism.

Although I guess that we should stop debating given this request by original poster:*

Experiences in and of themselves are real and precede reasoning in terms of certainty. But experiences are certain truth only within themselves. To say that experience points to certain truth of an external world is only a reasonable assumption which cannot be tested for certainty.

 

[ChainBreaker]

1. How is it more logical and rational to believe that we are one of many other conscious people, than to believe our consciousness is the only thing that is real?

We recognise the existence of other minds because we perceive beings that express themselves with the teleology of a mind. They produce meaning and information like we produce information. And since that information is not coming from me, I think it is coming from another mind. Thus I think it is more rational to believe in the existence of other minds.

1. How is an external world with other people a self-evident truth, and not vice versa?

It is not self evident. It is self evident that we are experiencing “something”. The nature of that something has been debated for thousands of years. Most people accept the world to which they are presented and so they take it for granted that the information they experience represents an external world.

1. What is a good refutation of “the voices of other people could possibly be just a form of our own subconscious thinking?”

You cannot get information from nothing.

For example; if someone says “Strawberries are red”, that would be my mind ‘thinking’ “Strawberries are red”

But if you had never experienced or heard of red strawberries then that information would have to come from somewhere else instead of your own mind.

1. Is solipsism possible if the senses are an illusion but reason is not?

I don’t know how to answer this because I don’t know what you mean by an illusion.

1. Why is it assumed that just because we are the only existing entity, that makes us God?

If your mind is existence, and if you are the cause of everything that you are experiencing, then this is one definition of God. But the truth is we exist in God’s mind.

) Why is it assumed that we have to know everything if we are the only existing entity?

If you are the only existing entity then your mind is existence. If your mind is existence, how is it possible not to know everything that is in your mind?

1. Why is it assumed we created everything if we are the only existing entity?

Because if your mind is existence, then everything that comes to exist in your mind is because of your mind. You are the existential cause of everything.

1. Ultimately for something to be true from my perspective, I have to ‘believe’ in it. Can this refute an external world in any way since all conclusions I make about life come from my own brain and reason, not anybody elses?

It does not refute an external world. Things are true regardless of our beliefs. You would have to be truth itself in-order to ontologically define what is true.

1. Why is it assumed that someone’s solipsism existence had a beginning?

Well, if your mind is existence, it cannot have a beginning. Do you remember existing forever?

1. Why is it assumed that “Just the ability to question if other life exists, is proof that other life exists, because you would have no basis of reality to ask that” ?

If you are the only mind that exists, wouldn’t you know if you created everything? A God with amnesia!

1. Why is it assumed that we wouldn’t be able to function in an illusion? We seem to function well within a dream (we are able to move about, communicate, etc. in the dream)

Those are 11 questions I hope can have good answers to them, these are usually the ones I ask to myself all the time.

I don’t have an answer for number 11.