Solipsism and other modern philosophies--why accepted?

[inocente]

A perspective that’s molded by Richard Feynman’s concepts of waves and their sum over histories. So let’s talk waves.

In talking of hypotheses, Fenyman said: “You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight… I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!”

Of course it’s not at all amazing. His point is that we can’t see a number plate and then get amazed by whatever number is on it. A prediction must be made ahead of time, not after the fact. An hypothesis must make a prediction which can be tested by experiment or observation. If the hypothesis is true, such and such will be observed, otherwise it’s false.

What prediction does your hypothesis make? If it’s correct, how does the world differ from if it were wrong, and how can that be tested? If it can’t, Fenyman would just tell you ARW 357.

 

[Partinobodycula]

What prediction does your hypothesis make? If it’s correct, how does the world differ from if it were wrong, and how can that be tested? If it can’t, Fenyman would just tell you ARW 357.

This is something that I’ve actually given quite a bit of thought to, how do I prove that I’m right? The problem is that if I’m right, then it should be logically impossible to prove that I’m right. Because if I’m correct then the world is the way it is because the conscious mind attempts to, and in fact must, avoid irrationalities, paradoxes, and contradictions. The first irrationality is that of infinity. The mind simply cannot conceive of having existed forever, therefore it must have a beginning. But in the same manner, that which gave rise to me couldn’t have existed forever either, and so it too must have a beginning. But neither can this chain of causes be infinite either, and so the mind creates something by which to resolve the problem of infinite regress. It creates God. But even God is irrational and so the mind creates an alternate explanation for existence, one born of science. The struggle between these two conflicting explanations gives rise to a world that’s torn by this need to resolve the irrational. To explain where it came from. It’s through this process that the conscious mind creates everything that it sees around it. This isn’t a conscious process on the mind’s part. It’s an instantaneous process by which reality emerges around the conscious mind. What the conscious mind emerges from, and how it emerges are another question entirely.

Okay, so if I can’t prove that I’m right then what’s the point? The point is that although the process by which reality emerges around me may be outside of my conscious control, I may none-the-less be able to influence its future by my actions in the present. If the future isn’t fixed, then I can change it. What I do matters. Therefore this isn’t just an intellectual exercise. If I’m correct, then I can change the future, and that’s the only way of having any semblance of proof, that I’m right.

You want me to make a prediction. I predict that the future will be an amazingly fantastic place in which solipsism isn’t the exception, it’s the norm. Not because everyone believes that their mind is the only one that exists, but rather because they believe that uniquely among all men, what they do matters.

 

[fisherman_carl]

This is something that I’ve actually given quite a bit of thought to, how do I prove that I’m right? The problem is that if I’m right, then it should be logically impossible to prove that I’m right. Because if I’m correct then the world is the way it is because the conscious mind attempts to, and in fact must, avoid irrationalities, paradoxes, and contradictions. The first irrationality is that of infinity. The mind simply cannot conceive of having existed forever, therefore it must have a beginning. But in the same manner, that which gave rise to me couldn’t have existed forever either, and so it too must have a beginning. But neither can this chain of causes be infinite either, and so the mind creates something by which to resolve the problem of infinite regress. It creates God. But even God is irrational and so the mind creates an alternate explanation for existence, one born of science. The struggle between these two conflicting explanations gives rise to a world that’s torn by this need to resolve the irrational. To explain where it came from. It’s through this process that the conscious mind creates everything that it sees around it. This isn’t a conscious process on the mind’s part. It’s an instantaneous process by which reality emerges around the conscious mind. What the conscious mind emerges from, and how it emerges are another question entirely.

Okay, so if I can’t prove that I’m right then what’s the point? The point is that although the process by which reality emerges around me may be outside of my conscious control, I may none-the-less be able to influence its future by my actions in the present. If the future isn’t fixed, then I can change it. What I do matters. Therefore this isn’t just an intellectual exercise. If I’m correct, then I can change the future, and that’s the only way of having any semblance of proof, that I’m right.

You want me to make a prediction. I predict that the future will be an amazingly fantastic place in which solipsism isn’t the exception, it’s the norm. Not because everyone believes that their mind is the only one that exists, but rather because they believe that uniquely among all men, what they do matters.

You assume that God is irritational. I don’t see how you come to this conclusion. It seems to me that the God is quite rational. There are mysteries about God but that doesn’t mean irrational.

 

[Partinobodycula]

You assume that God is irritational. I don’t see how you come to this conclusion. It seems to me that the God is quite rational. There are mysteries about God but that doesn’t mean irrational.

No, I don’t assume that God is irrational. I assume that He’s not conscious, there’s a difference. Reasoning is a process, but God doesn’t do…God is. Men insist upon anthropomorphizing God, as if He’s nothing more than an idealized version of themselves. God is He Who’s essence and existence are one and the same, I am. To understand Him any more clearly than this, is by necessity to define the Creator in terms of the creation. Something which is at once both necessary, and wrong.

God is that which is, and from which is everything else.

 

[inocente]

This is something that I’ve actually given quite a bit of thought to, how do I prove that I’m right? The problem is that if I’m right, then it should be logically impossible to prove that I’m right. Because if I’m correct then the world is the way it is because the conscious mind attempts to, and in fact must, avoid irrationalities, paradoxes, and contradictions. The first irrationality is that of infinity. The mind simply cannot conceive of having existed forever, therefore it must have a beginning. But in the same manner, that which gave rise to me couldn’t have existed forever either, and so it too must have a beginning. But neither can this chain of causes be infinite either, and so the mind creates something by which to resolve the problem of infinite regress. It creates God. But even God is irrational and so the mind creates an alternate explanation for existence, one born of science. The struggle between these two conflicting explanations gives rise to a world that’s torn by this need to resolve the irrational. To explain where it came from. It’s through this process that the conscious mind creates everything that it sees around it. This isn’t a conscious process on the mind’s part. It’s an instantaneous process by which reality emerges around the conscious mind. What the conscious mind emerges from, and how it emerges are another question entirely.

Okay, so if I can’t prove that I’m right then what’s the point? The point is that although the process by which reality emerges around me may be outside of my conscious control, I may none-the-less be able to influence its future by my actions in the present. If the future isn’t fixed, then I can change it. What I do matters. Therefore this isn’t just an intellectual exercise. If I’m correct, then I can change the future, and that’s the only way of having any semblance of proof, that I’m right.

You want me to make a prediction. I predict that the future will be an amazingly fantastic place in which solipsism isn’t the exception, it’s the norm. Not because everyone believes that their mind is the only one that exists, but rather because they believe that uniquely among all men, what they do matters.

That’s not a prediction, it’s a wish, along the lines of wanting world peace. In terms of science, if there’s no way to falsify your hypothesis then sorry but it’s what’s known as not even wrong.

You say “If the future isn’t fixed, then I can change it” but you don’t need complicated exotic hypotheses to change the world - just step out, take part, and you’ll change the world one step at a time. Almost impossible not to .

 

[Partinobodycula]

That’s not a prediction, it’s a wish, along the lines of wanting world peace. In terms of science, if there’s no way to falsify your hypothesis then sorry but it’s what’s known as not even wrong.

You say “If the future isn’t fixed, then I can change it” but you don’t need complicated exotic hypotheses to change the world - just step out, take part, and you’ll change the world one step at a time. Almost impossible not to .

Technically, it was a prediction. I made a definitive statement about future events. But then again, such predictions aren’t worth much. Just as predictions about heaven and hell aren’t worth much either. In the end, people see what they want to see. You want to see God, in the manner that you want to see Him, and so you do. But the world doesn’t care about what you want to see. Life, death, suffering, and injustice are indifferent to what you choose to believe. Solipsism is simply about recognizing this one simple truth, that I don’t know what to believe, and that irrespective of what I choose to believe, it’s what I do that matters. It’s what I do that changes things. So put on whatever spiritual armor you think you need, but remember that it’s simply there to empower you to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God. It’s not there to give you the authority to judge.

And so it says Christian Solipsist in the heading of this post. One reminds me that it’s a journey of faith. The other reminds me how to walk that faith.

 

[Wyrd]

No self.