Solipsism/matrix computer simulation

  • Thread starter Thread starter icetiger100
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

icetiger100

Guest
Hi I’m 17 and 7 months ago I watched this video about how everything could be an illusion or I could be in computer simulation or something. I thought it was stupid at first but I researched it more and found the term solipsism. This has really scared the **** out of me. How do I know that other people have minds like I do? Are my family my friends and everything I love an illusion 😭 this has been bothering me for 7 MONTHS. I’m a Christian but this type of philosophy is making me doubt god and everything. It’s making me feel suicidal and trust me I WANT TO LIVE but not like this.
I might sound insane I know but it’s killing me. I just wanted to know if someone on here can snap me out of this…😩 and btw don’t research solipsism if you have a weak mind like me
 
Don’t feel bad! Solipsism is an attractive philosophy because there are definite problems with how we come to knowledge! But never fear. There’s ways to argue against it.

One thing that goes hand-in-hand with solipsism is skepticism of the outside world - “How do we know we’re not just plugged into the Matrix?” The question is about what we can possibly know. GE Moore (who I’ve spoken about before when solipsism is brought up) has, I think, a very elegant solution to the problem. His argument is based on common sense. He says, paraphrasing:

Here is one hand. And here is another. Thus there are at least two things in the external world. Therefore, the external world exists. He says that the fact that you have two hands (provided you’re a person who has two hands) is self-evident. There is no way to reconcile what we KNOW about our own hands and the belief that there is nothing in the external world.

This is just written in broad strokes here - if you search “Here is one hand” or “Moorean Shift” you can find much more in-depth arguments and proofs about it. The point is, it doesn’t show that there is, in fact, an external world. It shows that believing that there isn’t an external world is unwarranted.
 
Yes but if this is true then why do so many people still have problems with it. And i don’t Fully understand Moore how can having 2 hands prove that the external world is real?
 
Because a person’s body is part of the external world. It exists beyond the brain. (provided the body exists)

Moore is saying that it’s just common sense to admit you have two hands - that the belief that you have no body is unjustified. Clearly, you have two hands. It would be inane to honestly argue otherwise.

When it comes to philosophy, at least academic philosophy, there are many arguments in many different areas: Ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, etc. In philosophy, there are no bullet-proof arguments. Most have ways to attack them. Solipsism is attractive because when you admit that maybe your mind is the only thing that exists, it solves a lot of these potential problems. How do you know that you can trust your senses? Because it’s all in your mind, and that’s all that exists. How can we determine what makes an object distinct from other objects? Well there aren’t any objects - it’s all in your mind.

The problem is, while solipsism solves all these theoretical problems, it leads to intuitive problems - like that you have no body. Clearly we have bodies. We fear for our lives, we react when our bodily integrity is in danger, we have disappointing and objectionable experienced. That’s what Moore was getting at. To deny we have two hands, and thus an external world exists, is just unjustified. Everything we know and feel screams against the idea that we only exist as a mind, and nothing else exists.
 
icetiger100 said:
Hi I’m 17 and 7 months ago I watched this video about how everything could be an illusion or I could be in computer simulation or something. I thought it was stupid at first but I researched it more and found the term solipsism. This has really scared the **** out of me. How do I know that other people have minds like I do? Are my family my friends and everything I love an illusion 😭 this has been bothering me for 7 MONTHS. I’m a Christian but this type of philosophy is making me doubt god and everything. It’s making me feel suicidal and trust me I WANT TO LIVE but not like this.
I might sound insane I know but it’s killing me. I just wanted to know if someone on here can snap me out of this…😩 and btw don’t research solipsism if you have a weak mind like me
Click to expand...
There is the way Descartes himself used: first, use Ontological argument to prove that God exists, second, prove something about God’s attributes (that would show that you are not God, thus disproving solipsism as such), third, note that good God would not let you be that wrong about everything (for example, see the beginning of his “Meditation IV” - en.wikisource.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy/Meditation_IIII).

Another possibility is to look at the actual solipsists discussing solipsism. Their problem is that it is pretty hard for them to give an answer to the question “How do you know solipsism is true?” (or “How do you know that we cannot know if anything else exists?”). 🙂 Everything they might say is less certain than existence of external world.

Oh, and, concerning that second way, there have been some discussions about solipsism in this forum. You might wish to look for them - for example, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=944833 (“Lets put an end to solipsism fears on this thread”) or forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=943646 (“Why the sudden appearance of Solipsism?”).
 
Rhubarb said:
Because a person’s body is part of the external world. It exists beyond the brain. (provided the body exists)

Moore is saying that it’s just common sense to admit you have two hands - that the belief that you have no body is unjustified. Clearly, you have two hands. It would be inane to honestly argue otherwise.

When it comes to philosophy, at least academic philosophy, there are many arguments in many different areas: Ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, etc. In philosophy, there are no bullet-proof arguments. Most have ways to attack them. Solipsism is attractive because when you admit that maybe your mind is the only thing that exists, it solves a lot of these potential problems. How do you know that you can trust your senses? Because it’s all in your mind, and that’s all that exists. How can we determine what makes an object distinct from other objects? Well there aren’t any objects - it’s all in your mind.

The problem is, while solipsism solves all these theoretical problems, it leads to intuitive problems - like that you have no body. Clearly we have bodies. We fear for our lives, we react when our bodily integrity is in danger, we have disappointing and objectionable experienced. That’s what Moore was getting at. To deny we have two hands, and thus an external world exists, is just unjustified. Everything we know and feel screams against the idea that we only exist as a mind, and nothing else exists.
Click to expand...
The problem is, our minds, our conscious, can deceive us, so we may think we have 2 hands, because our minds tell us that is whats normal, we are supposed to have 2 hands, so we see that…it could all be conditioning since our birth.

Im not a believer in this theory, but I do see how it could be possible, my problem with it, is the motive, why would the ‘powers that be’ set up such a world? what would the purpose be?
 
Oh ok thanks. I understand it a little more. So then u are a real person with a consciousness lol
 
And now I feel like my brain will take a while to realize that everything is real…solipsism has made me hate philosophy…but we’ll see in the future
 
For what it’s worth, in academic philosophy, solipsism is not taken seriously. I know of no serious philosopher these days that actually argues for solipsism as a foundational theory. When I encounter solipsism in the literature it’s usually about a certain very specific thing - like, solipsism about morals - that morality only exists in the mind. Or that morality is only what your mind takes to be morality. (Both are silly ideas)

An argument in philosophy should not only explain some feature, but it should conform to the intuitions of people. (Or, at least, a good number of people) Consider a knock-down and drag-out argument for a theory of ethics. And for the sake of argument let’s say this argument is beautifully crafted. It’s valid, it’s elegant, and it explains a great many things about how ethics work. BUT this theory allows for murder to be permissible. Even though the theory is well-argued and logical, it STILL would be considered unacceptable because it leads to the unintuitive conclusion that murder is permissible.

This is the problem that solipsism has as a general theory. It leads to crazy unintuitive conclusions - like that your mind is the only thing that exists. A solipsist would have to concede that I, Rhubarb, does not exist. This post that I’m writing, and the Catholic Answers forums itself, are all creations of your mind. That seems so unintuitive, at least to me. I can’t imagine a theory, even a finely tuned one, could defeat the unintuitiveness of it.
 
The question is, why would you entertain the idea in the first place? Just because someone suggested it as a possibility doesn’t imply that it is a valid observation or even worth entertaining. The problem is that all your senses indicate that solipsism is not true. Your senses tell you that the world exists and that people exist in it. Why doubt that? Because someone told you it is possible that your senses are wrong? I don’t think that is a valid argument.

I believe in trusting my own senses until someone absolutely proves to me that my sense are wrong. My experience of the world is more valid than someone else’s interpretation of the world. Until someone can demonstrate how my experience is in error, I will not even doubt it. I will not place a barrier of doubt between my self (or my mind) and the world (don’t interpret this in a way that implies a satisfaction with ignorance. I believe in seeking knowledge and constantly learning, but my own perception is my primary source of knowledge. Reading and communications from other people is secondary.).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top