Solipsism and other modern philosophies--why accepted?

[fisherman_carl]

You say “everyone has a brain”, but many dualists on CAF who follow Aristotle, Aquinas or Descartes say possessing a brain has nothing to do with having a mind.

I would say that would not be an accurate account of Aquinas. Perhaps, Descartes might say that. But for Aristotle and Aquinas they would disagree that the brain and the mind have nothing to do with one another. For they would say that the soul is the form of the body which includes the brain. Aristotle would say that objects are described as form and matter. A thing has a particular form and is composed of matter. A table for instance has a form of a table that allows us to recognize it as a table. But the form of the table without the matter would not be a table, but merely an abstraction, until it has the matter and takes that form.

Thus, in this view a human is not really human unless it has both the form of a human and the matter. The form of the brain is thus linked intimately with the brain. And the matter in the brain without the form of the brain would not be a brain. Thus, the brain needs both its form and its matter. Now, the soul is considered the form of the body by Aristotle, not some ghostly thing.

However, the thoughts in the mind are not physical, but are really the forms of things. Because you could not have some physical matter in your mind representing the thought - if you did when you think of a giraffe your mind would have to become a giraffe which is absurd - but instead you have the form or the essence of the thing in your mind. So, your mind is doing something your brain can not, that is think with immaterial forms or thoughts. Thus, your mind must be immaterial. And, this means there is an asymmetrical link to the brain. Yet it is still very much intimately linked to the brain for a human to think. For every material part of the brain must have the proper form in order to function properly. Which is why if the brain is damaged it can affect or impair your thinking. Because part of the equation of form and matter is missing.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I think that there are some very logical reasons why people today are more willing to consider philosophies such as solipsism. A thousand years ago you could make a philosophical argument for solipsism, but it became very difficult to defend when faced with the obvious tangible nature of the world around you. In those days the prospect of reality as an illusion was indeed absurd, and so rather easily dismissed.

The seeds for change however, were planted in the early 1900’s when a young patent clerk named Albert Einstein introduced the theory of relativity. This theory inaugurated a subtle yet profound change, because it altered our concepts of space and time. They were no longer as absolute as we had perceived them to be. The problem got even more pronounced with the introduction of quantum mechanics, and the notion that things don’t really “exist” until they’re observed. This provided the means to defend the idea of a mind dependent reality on scientific grounds and not merely philosophical ones. But the problem for realists got even worse. The quantized nature of reality meant that reality was computable. It’s reducible to algorithms. Which means that it can be simulated. And it’s not just that it can be simulated, but it’s to the point that one of the most respected physics laboratories in the world, Fermilab, is currently running an experiment to determine whether reality actually could be a hologram.

So the argument against solipsism is much, much weaker than it was a thousand years ago. We actually ARE living in an observer created reality, the only question is, what constitutes an observer? So the situation isn’t the same as it was all those years ago. Solipsism isn’t confined to merely a philosophical debate. Evidence in its favor has been mounting for a hundred years and shows no signs of abating. It may not be a question of if solipsism gains mainstream acceptance, but when.

While reading this I am thinking that solipism is obviously false to anyone other than a solipist. For my act of reading your reasoning for being a solipist in fact disproves solopism. For if I was to accept what you wrote I would have to believe from your perspective that my own thoughts might not be real. But since I know that to be false then solopism is obviously false.

 

[You]

So now that I know I am just a figment of your imagination I know that I don’t exist. So it does not matter what I do, I can do anything now. hahaha and its all your fault.

 

[Protestor]

Say you were in the Matrix (as I understand it from the movie of that name), then presumably they would be feeding the people intravenously, so even if they didn’t eat in what was their “conscious life” (sorry, I don’t know the correct term), they would not starve to death. They would think they were eating in their “conscious life,” but they wouldn’t really be eating.

You are assuming things about this world which I have not attempted to explain because I find it silly to do so. There could in this world be a program that controlled how much you were actually feed by how much you ate in the matrix. So if you starved yourself in this world you would starve in actuality. Who knows, maybe if you starve in this world the program will shut down your simulation and take you off life support or whatever other thing that is more elegant than what I can come up with off the top of my head.

Your next response will tell me wether or not you are trolling me. If I don’t answer it’s because you are not worth my time.

 

[inocente]

To the bolded statement: Precisely, which is why I started this thread, to find out why people think and accept these other notions of reality.

To your first paragraph: I do not think that anything I said should lead one to think that is what I was advocating.

To your second paragraph: Huh? If reality exists independently of observation, how can our thoughts about reality be relative? They would instead be either right or wrong, in alignment with reality or not.

Take the OED definition of reality: The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

I take it you and I agree on that. I’m just saying that philosophers pick at that definition, and have different ideas of what constitutes a thing, of what does or not exist, and even what existence is, and there’s no way to prove which (if any of them) is correct.

 

[inocente]

If you answer no however, then not only isn’t the world around you fixed, but the past isn’t fixed either, at least not until you “look” at it. In this case the causal chain of events begins with you and progresses outward through both space and time. You’re the epicenter of what’s real. You’re the focal point from which reality emerges. This is what I’m talking about when I say that cause and effect begins with me. The past is fixed only in so far as the state of the world as I experience it, dictates the state of the world in the past. What is, dictates what was, and not the other way around.

You seem to be attracted to speculative ideas. Pretend for a moment you are Galileo. You are the first to train a telescope on the heavens, you see far more than anyone has before. All of which, according to your theory, suddenly jumps into existence. Entire galaxies suddenly get their state fixed by you looking at them, and they resolve into multitudes of stars.

Only trouble being that the light from those stars started out from those galaxies billions of years before you saw it. It had to, or you couldn’t have observed it.

But for a Christian there’s another little issue. If the past only fixes when you observe it, then God either cannot exist or cannot be conscious, since otherwise the past would already have become fixed long ago when He first observed it. And according to Genesis, He certainly did observe it, as he “saw that the light was good”.

 

[Partinobodycula]

You seem to be attracted to speculative ideas. Pretend for a moment you are Galileo. You are the first to train a telescope on the heavens, you see far more than anyone has before. All of which, according to your theory, suddenly jumps into existence. Entire galaxies suddenly get their state fixed by you looking at them, and they resolve into multitudes of stars.

Only trouble being that the light from those stars started out from those galaxies billions of years before you saw it. It had to, or you couldn’t have observed it.

You’re no doubt familiar with quantum mechanics and the seemingly odd behavior of entangled particles. The observation of one particle will have an instantaneous effect on the other, and it doesn’t matter how far apart those particles are. Oddly enough this effect holds true not just across space, but across time as well. Experiments have shown that an observation performed on one particle in the present will have an effect on the other particle in the past. We all know intuitively that the actions we take today have an effect on the future, and that those effects become fixed the very instant that we act. But what we don’t realize intuitively is that those actions have an effect on the past as well, and that those effects are equally instantaneous. These instantaneous effects assure that the past and the future will always be consistent with the present. Which is why I’ve been saying that cause and effect works both forwards in time, and backwards in time. What you do today changes the future, but it also changes the past.

So when Galileo trained his telescope on the heavens, his actions in the present had an instantaneous effect on the past. And not just on the distant galaxies, but on every particle in-between the galaxies and Galileo. I realize that this isn’t what we intuitively think happens, but it’s what quantum mechanics says happens.

But for a Christian there’s another little issue. If the past only fixes when you observe it, then God either cannot exist or cannot be conscious, since otherwise the past would already have become fixed long ago when He first observed it. And according to Genesis, He certainly did observe it, as he “saw that the light was good”.

Ah, now you have to try to figure out what the nature of God is. God may see every possible past and every possible future, and it’s just I who sees only one. And it may be that the very attribute of being able to see only one is what I perceive as consciousness. Consciousness is by its very nature an isolated and solitary thing. It distinguishes “I” from everything else.

One thing is fairly certain however, I didn’t give rise to myself. My task therefore, is to try to discern what did. Solipsism is simply a recognition of where that task begins.

 

[You]

Observation of a particle doesn’t mean a consciousness observing, it means a physical material measuring instrument inserted to take a measurement physically interferes, because it is matter, with the particles it is measuring. Consciousness is not involved, it was a poor choice of words originally which let that confusion begin.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Observation of a particle doesn’t mean a consciousness observing, it means a physical material measuring instrument inserted to take a measurement physically interferes, because it is matter, with the particles it is measuring. Consciousness is not involved,

Actually what constitutes an observer is open for debate. The problem is that you can never, EVER separate the observation from the conscious observer. To know what the result of any experiment was you have to look at it. In which case you have no way of determining whether it was the interaction with the system that caused the collapse, or the interaction with the conscious observer. If you think that you can make such a distinction, then you’re simply misinformed. Such confusion is understandable, but the simple truth is, you have no way of knowing.

it was a poor choice of words originally which let that confusion begin.

Deciding on the correct choice of words is often a challenge. No matter which words you choose some people will take exception to what you said, and others will take exception to what you didn’t say. Those who wish to find fault will always find a way to do so.

 

[St_Francis]

I look at these two questions, and I go, man, do I go with the long answer or the short answer. I’m going to go with the short answer.

This is the short answer >>> Because people do things which my heart beseeches them not to do, and I need to understand why.

What! You chose to believe that nothing exists unless you are perceiving it so that you will understand why people (who don’t exist unless you perceive them) chose to do things you don’t want them to do?

I think I missed something somewhere…

 

[Partinobodycula]

What! You chose to believe that nothing exists unless you are perceiving it so that you will understand why people (who don’t exist unless you perceive them) chose to do things you don’t want them to do?

I realize that sometimes my answers can be bit cryptic. In this case however, it’s not as cryptic as it might appear.

The question, why do people do what my heart beseeches them not to do, lies at the heart of every theology, and none more so than Christianity.

I think I missed something somewhere…

Yes, you missed something.

 

[inocente]

I would say that would not be an accurate account of Aquinas. Perhaps, Descartes might say that. But for Aristotle and Aquinas they would disagree that the brain and the mind have nothing to do with one another. For they would say that the soul is the form of the body which includes the brain. Aristotle would say that objects are described as form and matter. A thing has a particular form and is composed of matter. A table for instance has a form of a table that allows us to recognize it as a table. But the form of the table without the matter would not be a table, but merely an abstraction, until it has the matter and takes that form.

Thus, in this view a human is not really human unless it has both the form of a human and the matter. The form of the brain is thus linked intimately with the brain. And the matter in the brain without the form of the brain would not be a brain. Thus, the brain needs both its form and its matter. Now, the soul is considered the form of the body by Aristotle, not some ghostly thing.

However, the thoughts in the mind are not physical, but are really the forms of things. Because you could not have some physical matter in your mind representing the thought - if you did when you think of a giraffe your mind would have to become a giraffe which is absurd - but instead you have the form or the essence of the thing in your mind. So, your mind is doing something your brain can not, that is think with immaterial forms or thoughts. Thus, your mind must be immaterial. And, this means there is an asymmetrical link to the brain. Yet it is still very much intimately linked to the brain for a human to think. For every material part of the brain must have the proper form in order to function properly. Which is why if the brain is damaged it can affect or impair your thinking. Because part of the equation of form and matter is missing.

You’re not the first to make the “immaterial” claim in your third paragraph, can you link the source?

I’m guessing the claim must at least predate the discovery of mirror neurons:

“A mirror neuron is a neuron that fires both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another. Thus, the neuron “mirrors” the behavior of the other, as though the observer were itself acting. Such neurons have been directly observed in primate species. Birds have been shown to have imitative resonance behaviors and neurological evidence suggests the presence of some form of mirroring system.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

Whether or not that’s actually how empathy and so on work, it shows that the claim is far too quick to dismiss more mundane alternatives.

 

[You]

Actually what constitutes an observer is open for debate. The problem is that you can never, EVER separate the observation from the conscious observer. To know what the result of any experiment was you have to look at it. In which case you have no way of determining whether it was the interaction with the system that caused the collapse, or the interaction with the conscious observer. If you think that you can make such a distinction, then you’re simply misinformed. Such confusion is understandable, but the simple truth is, you have no way of knowing.

Not so. Lets imagine the double slit experiment. You can observe it with your consciousness and even with your eyes until the cows come home but you will never know which slit the particle went through. The only way of knowing is to put a detector inside one of the slits. The moment you do that the ‘waveform’ collapses. The waveform does not collapse because you happened to look at it or think about it with your consciousness. Your consciousness had to move itself to physically pick up a piece of matter and stick it in the slit interfering with the particles path.

Deciding on the correct choice of words is often a challenge. No matter which words you choose some people will take exception to what you said, and others will take exception to what you didn’t say. Those who wish to find fault will always find a way to do so.

No doubt. No-one disputes facts.

 

[inocente]

You’re no doubt familiar with quantum mechanics and the seemingly odd behavior of entangled particles. The observation of one particle will have an instantaneous effect on the other, and it doesn’t matter how far apart those particles are. Oddly enough this effect holds true not just across space, but across time as well. Experiments have shown that an observation performed on one particle in the present will have an effect on the other particle in the past. We all know intuitively that the actions we take today have an effect on the future, and that those effects become fixed the very instant that we act. But what we don’t realize intuitively is that those actions have an effect on the past as well, and that those effects are equally instantaneous. These instantaneous effects assure that the past and the future will always be consistent with the present. Which is why I’ve been saying that cause and effect works both forwards in time, and backwards in time. What you do today changes the future, but it also changes the past.

I think you’re focusing on a single phenomenon and ignoring the rest of physics. To take another example, no individual electron obeys Ohm’s Law, but nevertheless the law tells us the average behavior of electrons. The world is the outcome of statistics.

*Ah, now you have to try to figure out what the nature of God is. God may see every possible past and every possible future, and it’s just I who sees only one. And it may be that the very attribute of being able to see only one is what I perceive as consciousness. Consciousness is by its very nature an isolated and solitary thing. It distinguishes “I” from everything else.

One thing is fairly certain however, I didn’t give rise to myself. My task therefore, is to try to discern what did. Solipsism is simply a recognition of where that task begins.*

There was someone on this forum who believed God is made from consciousness and dark energy, and he argued cogently that it must be the case. There are people all over the internet who are equally vehement about their pet theories.

The reason you’re unique isn’t because you’re isolated, it’s because of all that has happened to make you. You’re the outcome of your genes and nurture, of all the history that went before you. It’s statistics which make you unique. You sound as if you’re focusing on a single idea and ignoring the rest of the world.

Here’s an opposite philosophy from another Christian, Lauryn Hill - youtube.com/watch?v=i3_dOWYHS7I. Everything is what it is because of everything else, and without everything else, nothing would be as it is

 

[Partinobodycula]

Not so. Lets imagine the double slit experiment. You can observe it with your consciousness and even with your eyes until the cows come home but you will never know which slit the particle went through. The only way of knowing is to put a detector inside one of the slits. The moment you do that the ‘waveform’ collapses. The waveform does not collapse because you happened to look at it or think about it with your consciousness. Your consciousness had to move itself to physically pick up a piece of matter and stick it in the slit interfering with the particles path.

At this point I think that it would be helpful to stop and clarify the discussion, just to make it simpler for those who might be trying to follow along. In quantum physics there’s a debate that’s been going on for quite a long time as to what actually causes the collapse of a wave function. The problem is that there are two distinct events that take place when you measure something. One, you have to interact with the thing somehow, and two, you have to observe the outcome of that interaction. The problem is that it’s impossible to set up an experiment that eliminates one of these two components. You always need an interaction and you always need an observer. This raises an obvious question, which of the two actually causes the collapse? You can say, well it’s obvious that the interaction does, but in reality there’s simply no way to know. And so we have a discussion such as the one we’re having now. But the truth is that we can’t resolve the issue any more than anyone else can. Just as an aside, there are in fact those who maintain that the actual answer is, neither. It’s not the interaction, nor the observer that causes the collapse, it’s God.

So this is a debate that’s been going on for a long time among people who are a lot smarter than I am. The ultimate conclusion seems to be that there’s just no way to know what part consciousness plays in the emergence of the classical world from the quantum one.

So when it comes to solipsism, and the role that the conscious mind plays in reality, the question it seems, is destined to remain unanswered.

I think you’re focusing on a single phenomenon and ignoring the rest of physics. To take another example, no individual electron obeys Ohm’s Law, but nevertheless the law tells us the average behavior of electrons. The world is the outcome of statistics.

I will readily admit that although I try to keep up with the current state of physics, there’s more information out there than I could ever hope to assimilate. But as of today I’m unaware of anything that disproves the notion that reality may be all in my mind.

There was someone on this forum who believed God is made from consciousness and dark energy, and he argued cogently that it must be the case. There are people all over the internet who are equally vehement about their pet theories.

The reason you’re unique isn’t because you’re isolated, it’s because of all that has happened to make you. You’re the outcome of your genes and nurture, of all the history that went before you. It’s statistics which make you unique. You sound as if you’re focusing on a single idea and ignoring the rest of the world.

Here’s an opposite philosophy from another Christian, Lauryn Hill - youtube.com/watch?v=i3_dOWYHS7I. Everything is what it is because of everything else, and without everything else, nothing would be as it is

I agree that the world is teeming with disparate concepts of reality, none of which likely hold the whole answer, as much as many of them would like to think that they do. I’m no different. I have a point of view that I believe is worth considering. My point of view is this, others see reality as a long fixed chain of cause and effect leading inevitably to them, and everything around them. I think reality is more like a bubble, that arises out of some quantum like medium and coalesces around a conscious observer. I think physics doesn’t preclude such a notion, but that understandably, people do. My goal, is to change that.

The concept of solipsism may sound crazy to you, but I think that it’s far more rational than most would like to believe.

 

[St_Francis]

I realize that sometimes my answers can be bit cryptic. In this case however, it’s not as cryptic as it might appear.

The question, why do people do what my heart beseeches them not to do, lies at the heart of every theology, and none more so than Christianity.

Yes, you missed something.

The only thing I can think of is too weird, so perhaps you could give me a clue?

 

[You]

At this point I think that it would be helpful to stop and clarify the discussion, just to make it simpler for those who might be trying to follow along. In quantum physics there’s a debate that’s been going on for quite a long time as to what actually causes the collapse of a wave function. The problem is that there are two distinct events that take place when you measure something. One, you have to interact with the thing somehow, and two, you have to observe the outcome of that interaction. The problem is that it’s impossible to set up an experiment that eliminates one of these two components. You always need an interaction and you always need an observer. This raises an obvious question, which of the two actually causes the collapse? You can say, well it’s obvious that the interaction does, but in reality there’s simply no way to know. And so we have a discussion such as the one we’re having now. But the truth is that we can’t resolve the issue any more than anyone else can. Just as an aside, there are in fact those who maintain that the actual answer is, neither. It’s not the interaction, nor the observer that causes the collapse, it’s God.

…

Its physics. You do not need an observer. The problem is the idiotically sloppy language other people use to describe a simple thing as if it were something mysterious. Like talking about faeries and little people eating food left outside when its actually, and in reality, in fact a hedgehog. Its what people specialise in, exaggeration and distortion and embellishment.

If you think about your experiment as waves and ripples then if you stick a measuring device into a wave then the wave interacts and interferes with that material of the device and there is an overall ‘waveform collapse’ or in other words you you now know where the particle is. Its about as mysterious as waves on a pond.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Thank you You, for bringing up waves, because I absolutely love waves. If you’ve checked my profile then you know that I only have a ninth grade education, but don’t let that fool you, if I could’ve been anything I wanted to be in life, I would’ve been a physicist, or a hermit. Unfortunately perhaps, I’m more on the hermit side, but this love of physics and the lack of a formal education combine to give me a very unique perspective on the nature of the world around me. A perspective that’s molded by Richard Feynman’s concepts of waves and their sum over histories. So let’s talk waves.

Its physics. You do not need an observer.

It’s quantum physics to be precise, and you absolutely, positively do need an observer. You just need to define what constitutes an observer. And as Hugh Everett pointed out, you can only have one.

If you think about your experiment as waves and ripples then if you stick a measuring device into a wave then the wave interacts and interferes with that material of the device and there is an overall ‘waveform collapse’ or in other words you you now know where the particle is. Its about as mysterious as waves on a pond.

So let’s think about it as waves and ripples. It isn’t as simple as you think it is. If I have an electron who’s position can only be defined like a wave, and I want to discern a localized position for that electron, how do I do that? Your proposal is to interact with it by means of another wave. (One created by your measuring device) As if the normal behavior of waves is to “collapse” upon interaction. But that isn’t the normal behavior of waves. The normal behavior of waves is for them to form an interference pattern. So let’s assume that that’s what happens, unless of course you would like to change your mind about thinking of particles as waves.

But if you insist upon thinking of particles as waves, then the measuring device shouldn’t cause the particle’s wave to collapse. It’s just one wave interacting with another wave. In which case the question becomes, what does cause the collapse?

The beauty of thinking of things as waves is that it makes the solipsistic interpretation of reality far simpler and more elegant than the traditional interpretation. Reality is indeed waves. The epicenter of which, is me. These waves radiate outward, coalescing into the reality that I see around me. They radiate outward in space and time, creating both the future and the past, both of which have a potentiality based upon the present, but which only become actuality when I “look” at them.

You may believe that solipsism is absurd, but I think that from a physics, philosophical, and theological perspective it’s profoundly elegant.

 

[fisherman_carl]

You’re not the first to make the “immaterial” claim in your third paragraph, can you link the source?

I’m guessing the claim must at least predate the discovery of mirror neurons:

“A mirror neuron is a neuron that fires both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another. Thus, the neuron “mirrors” the behavior of the other, as though the observer were itself acting. Such neurons have been directly observed in primate species. Birds have been shown to have imitative resonance behaviors and neurological evidence suggests the presence of some form of mirroring system.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

Whether or not that’s actually how empathy and so on work, it shows that the claim is far too quick to dismiss more mundane alternatives.

I’m not sure what you are trying to say here or what mirroring could possibly prove. However, if Aquinas’ arguments for an immaterial mind is sound it doesn’t matter what neuroscience finds about the brain. If the premises are true and the conclusion logically follows then it is simply true. And no amount of science could ever disprove it anymore than it can disprove that 2+2=4. But anyways this thread is about solopism so i don’t want to start a different discussion here.

 

[inocente]

I’m not sure what you are trying to say here or what mirroring could possibly prove. However, if Aquinas’ arguments for an immaterial mind is sound it doesn’t matter what neuroscience finds about the brain. If the premises are true and the conclusion logically follows then it is simply true. And no amount of science could ever disprove it anymore than it can disprove that 2+2=4. But anyways this thread is about solopism so i don’t want to start a different discussion here.

2+2=4 by definition. That’s the only reason it’s true, it’s simply a correct theorem out of certain axioms. With other axioms, 2+2=10 (base 3), or 2+2=2 (boolean), or whatever the axioms make it.

Aquinas made a very logical argument that light is instantaneous, but he’s wrong. Aristotle made a very logical argument for celestial spheres, but he’s wrong. The reason that philosophers can be logical yet wrong is that there are lots of logically consistent possible universes. In some of them light could be instantaneous and there could be celestial spheres. But not in ours.

And that seems to be the problem with solipsism too. Perhaps there is a logically consistent possible universe where time runs backwards and stars suddenly appear when someone far off from the long distant future looks in that direction. But not in ours.