Causality in the subjective world

[Canute]

The “God is the answer” solution is similar to the “solipsism is the answer” solution – neither can be logically falsified. One must simply assume their truth or falsity.

This is quite simply not true. No such assumption is necessary. In my view it is serious mistake to assume the truth or falsity of solpsism and make this the basis of your deductions. The result of doing this can be seen in the stagnation of metaphysics since Plato.

Only if we have good reason for believing it is unfalsifiable (if we don’t, it simply becomes an assumption – and I see no reason to simply assume it is true).

Agreed. Its unfalsifiablity is a known fact which even you have not yet disputed.

I’ve presented an argument that is based on analytic truth. Would you agree with that argument?

No, as I've I think I've made clear. But either way we agree that it is unfalsifiable.

Solipsism is always a possible answer to everything

How is solipsism the answer to anything?

As I keep saying, but it seems like the message doesn’t get through, one cannot make any progress in explanation or understanding unless one first makes assumptions.

You haven't yet proved this to be true. You just keep saying it.

Assumption 1 : Is solipsism true? If you assume “yes”, then do not pass GO, do not collect £200.

Yes, and ditto for the assumption that it is false.

(What’s the point of philosophising any further about a world which is entirely in your imagination?)

One might philosophise about how this is possible, and what it implies, as did Neo. For a start, one might conclude from this that nihilism is false.

 

[Eric England]

Assumption 1:... (What’s the point of philosophising any further about a world which is entirely in your imagination?)

Asumption 2:... (What’s the point of philosophising any further about a world which is explained totally by the premise of God?)

1. At what point is the world "ENTIRELY in our imagination" and what is "imagination"? What quality (negative or positive) and scope should be applied to it? To "see", both how and how far, has not been established.

2. Because to shed blood, sweat, and tears for as long as it takes to eliminate ALL, other than God – is to have a chance to discover the Absolute. "Absolute" meaning something that applies to science, philosophy, and religion.

 

[moving finger]

Agents report conscious experiences. Such reports can be accepted as input data for physicalist treatments of the phenomenon, just as any measurement of the world may be used as input data for physicalist treatment of phenomena.

This is true. But Behaviourism is a discredited doctrine imo.

I’m not advocating behaviourism.

The onus is on the one claiming that there is a problem to demonstrate just what the problem is supposed to be, and why the existing rational explanation that solves the problem is incorrect.

One could equally argue that the onus is on the other side to show that there is no problem.

Once again (this is getting boring) Metzinger’s paper shows how consciousness can arise. Where is the problem?

The “God is the answer” solution is similar to the “solipsism is the answer” solution – neither can be logically falsified. One must simply assume their truth or falsity.

This is quite simply not true. No such assumption is necessary. In my view it is serious mistake to assume the truth or falsity of solpsism and make this the basis of your deductions. The result of doing this can be seen in the stagnation of metaphysics since Plato.

Thus your worldview is predicated on the assumption that we cannot assume solipsism either true or false…. And how do you propose to come to any understanding or explanation of the world on this basis?

Only if we have good reason for believing it is unfalsifiable (if we don’t, it simply becomes an assumption – and I see no reason to simply assume it is true).

Agreed. Its unfalsifiablity is a known fact which even you have not yet disputed.

Please explain how you know that it is known.

I’ve presented an argument that is based on analytic truth. Would you agree with that argument?

No, as I've I think I've made clear. But either way we agree that it is unfalsifiable.

You cannot escape that easily, Canute. On the one hand you seem to claim that we are not entitled to assume that solipsism is either true or false, but on the other hand you seem to think you can claim that “the unfalsifiablity of solipsism” is an assumption that can be made without further justification. Do you think this is a consistent worldview?

Solipsism is always a possible answer to everything

How is solipsism the answer to anything?

Solipsism entails that the entire world is in my imagination. If I can imagine anything then why do I need any explanations?

As I keep saying, but it seems like the message doesn’t get through, one cannot make any progress in explanation or understanding unless one first makes assumptions.

You haven't yet proved this to be true. You just keep saying it.

Hypotheses are not proven true, they are (if anything) proven false. I keep asking you for examples of explanations that do not make assumptions, and you cannot provide any legitimate ones – thus you have failed to prove my hypothesis false.

Best Regards

 

[Canute]

I’m not advocating behaviourism.

Let's forget all about reports then.

Once again (this is getting boring) Metzinger’s paper shows how consciousness can arise. Where is the problem?

If you think Metzinger's right then that's fine by me. I don't.

Thus your worldview is predicated on the assumption that we cannot assume solipsism either true or false…. And how do you propose to come to any understanding or explanation of the world on this basis?

No. My proposal is that we know solipsism is unfalsifiable. As you won't accept this we cannot move on.

Please explain how you know that it is known.

Only you can answer this one.

You cannot escape that easily, Canute. On the one hand you seem to claim that we are not entitled to assume that solipsism is either true or false, but on the other hand you seem to think you can claim that “the unfalsifiablity of solipsism” is an assumption that can be made without further justification. Do you think this is a consistent worldview?

Absolutely.

Solipsism entails that the entire world is in my imagination. If I can imagine anything then why do I need any explanations?

I don't think anyone believes that solipsism is true.

Hypotheses are not proven true, they are (if anything) proven false. I keep asking you for examples of explanations that do not make assumptions, and you cannot provide any legitimate ones – thus you have failed to prove my hypothesis false.

I'm doing this is another thread about mysticism in General Philosophy.

Cheers
Canute

 

[moving finger]

Let's forget all about reports then.

Why? Do you believe that “asking for a report” entails behaviourist beliefs? Check up on heterophenomenology.

If you think Metzinger's right then that's fine by me. I don't.

Could you explain where you think he is wrong, where his explanation is in error? If you cannot (or if you prefer not to) then how can you reasonably expect me to accept your glib statement that nobody has solved the hard problem?

My proposal is that we know solipsism is unfalsifiable. As you won't accept this we cannot move on.

You expect me to accept that “we know solipsism is unfalsifiable” just because you say so, without any kind of rational argument from you in support of your claim? If you said that “we know the Tooth Fairy exists” would you expect me to accept that too? Is that what philsophical discussion means to you?

I have argued (in another thread) that the proposition “solipsism is unfalsifiable” is an analytic truth (and provided an argument to support that claim). You seem to disagree with me. I have asked you on what basis you believe solipsism is unfalsifiable, and all I can seem to get in response is “we know”.

How do we know? By what means do we know (ie what rational argunment can you give to support the position) that solipsism is unfalsifiable?

Please explain how you know that it is known.

Only you can answer this one.

Is this supposed to be a meaningful answer?
You have claimed that you know solipsism is unfalsifiable, but you fail to show how you know. Do you expect me to take your position seriously?

You cannot escape that easily, Canute. On the one hand you seem to claim that we are not entitled to assume that solipsism is either true or false, but on the other hand you seem to think you can claim that “the unfalsifiablity of solipsism” is an assumption that can be made without further justification. Do you think this is a consistent worldview?

Absolutely.

It seems you are more interested in giving cryptic responses than in supporting your position. We best call it a day.

Best Regards

 

[Eric England]

Solipsism entails that the entire world is in my imagination. If I can imagine anything then why do I need any explanations?

How does one know, one's imagination entails the entire world? How does one know, one can imagine anything (all things)?

Even if you can explain this, what imaginings can you make "happen"? And even if you could make one happen, how do you know if it is you, that makes it happen?

Not trying to argumentative, just concise.

 

[selfAdjoint]

How does one know, one's imagination entails the entire world? How does one know, one can imagine anything (all things)?

Even if you can explain this, what imaginings can you make "happen"? And even if you could make one happen, how do you know if it is you, that makes it happen?

Not trying to argumentative, just concise.

That's missing the point. I have in my imagination the impression of a world, and if I am a solipsist (which, I hasten to say, I am not!) then I assert that that imaginary world of mine is all there is. And I don't have to justify it; you and all my other critics are just figments of my imagination!

 

[Eric England]

That's missing the point. I have in my imagination the impression of a world, and if I am a solipsist (which, I hasten to say, I am not!) then I assert that that imaginary world of mine is all there is. And I don't have to justify it; you and all my other critics are just figments of my imagination!

Thank you – good point.

Narcissist.

 

[moving finger]

ftaod (for the avoidance of doubt) : (Metaphysical) solipsism is a belief that nothing beyond oneself and one's internal experiences does in fact exist, and that all objects, people, etc, that one experiences are merely parts of one's own mind. In what follows, I call solipsism "true" if this belief represents a true belief about the world; on the other hand I call solipsism "false" if this belief represents a false belief about the world.

How does one know, one's imagination entails the entire world? How does one know, one can imagine anything (all things)?.

One does not know for certain either way. If one does not imagine all things (ie if some things are real, outside of one's imagination), then by definition (metaphysical) solipsism is false. On the other hand, if one does imagine all things (ie nothing is real outside of one's imagination) then by definition (metaphysical) solipsism may be true.

Whether (metaphysical) solipsism is true or false is not something we can verify empirically.

Even if you can explain this, what imaginings can you make "happen"? And even if you could make one happen, how do you know if it is you, that makes it happen?

The answer to that depends on whether (metaphysical) solipsism is true or false. If true, then by definition everything is in my imagination. If false then by definition not everything need be in my imagination.

Whether (metaphysical) solipsism is true or false is not something we can verify empirically.


Best Regards

 

[Canute]

Why? Do you believe that “asking for a report” entails behaviourist beliefs? Check up on heterophenomenology.

In my opinion, and not just my opinion, heterophenomenology is Behaviourism in slight disguise. This seems to be whole point of it.

Could you explain where you think he is wrong, where his explanation is in error? If you cannot (or if you prefer not to) then how can you reasonably expect me to accept your glib statement that nobody has solved the hard problem?

Such an argument would be pointless. If you read the literature you'll see just how many people think it has been solved.

You expect me to accept that “we know solipsism is unfalsifiable” just because you say so, without any kind of rational argument from you in support of your claim?

This is very frustrating. It is impossible to demonstrate that solipsism is unfalsifiable. I don't know you won't accept this.

I have argued (in another thread) that the proposition “solipsism is unfalsifiable” is an analytic truth (and provided an argument to support that claim). You seem to disagree with me. I have asked you on what basis you believe solipsism is unfalsifiable, and all I can seem to get in response is “we know”.

What else can I say? You seem unprepared to consider how it is that we know this. I've asked but you don't reply.

How do we know? By what means do we know (ie what rational argunment can you give to support the position) that solipsism is unfalsifiable?

As I've said a few times now, there is no such rational argument. Only you can know whether you can falsify solipsism. As far as I know you may not even be conscious.

Is this supposed to be a meaningful answer?

Of course it is.

You have claimed that you know solipsism is unfalsifiable, but you fail to show how you know. Do you expect me to take your position seriously?

It is impossible to demonstrate that I know solipsism is unfalsifiable. I should have thought this was obvious. If I could demonstrate that solipsism is unfalsifiable then I'd have demonstrated to you that I am conscious, in which case from your pov I would have falsified it.

It seems you are more interested in giving cryptic responses than in supporting your position. We best call it a day.

I didn't give a cryptic answer. I answered your question unambiguously with one word.

The statement "Whether (metaphysical) solipsism is true or false is not something we can verify empirically." is an assumption, not a fact. If you stuck to the facts we'd be able to move on.

But I agree. Let's call it a day.

Regards
Canute

 

[Tournesol]

"Whether (metaphysical) solipsism is true or false is not something we can verify empirically."

If there is a "we", solipsism is false !

And being analytical doesn't make solipsism an analtyical truth !

 

[moving finger]

If there is a "we", solipsism is false !

Good point! Of course I should have used "I" instead of "we" (I put it down to the scientist in me)

And being analytical doesn't make solipsism an analtyical truth !

Since I have never claimed that solipsism is an analytical truth, I assume this comment is in response to someone else's post.

Best Regards