- #91
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,097
- 1
Greetings !
I try not to believe at all. I am not supportive of either
solipsism or materialism. Further more, I think that occasionaly
the people who do believe in one of these approaches tend
to give it too much meaning and credit for things that are not
at all part of the basic premise, which is reflective of their
personal bias that "convinced" them of a specific approach.
What I was doing is trying to show that arguments for/against
solipsism/materialism are as huge in number as the amount
of ways of approaching the subject and each of them may be
supportive of either possibility.
Tom, to tell you the truth my argument is problematic
because it deals with thought, which is in itself a problematic concept because first of all it's basic and thus has no definition and because it is not necessarily present whether solipsism is right or wrong. But, like I said, there are huge if not infinite
ways of approaching the subject.
The best, simplest and most basic way of approaching solipsism
and materialism, in my opinion, is as I recently wrote in one of Mentat's threads:
Solipsism says - observation = existence and
materialism says - observation = part of existence (or even none).
It is also rather simple to see here why no decisive
solution is, apparently, possible.
As for your points(I will try not to slide into the most basic
level - wher it naturally becomes pretty easy and boring, but
rather try to oppose them on their own level, as much as possible
of course
):
1. Reading some of what you said in your last response I
can say that this apparently reaches "down" to the PoE itself.
That is, if indeed solipsism says that ALL is in the mind
then it does indeed clearly mean that we must at least
know the rules (even if the connection of them and their
application and them also apparently being part of the
application still doesn't make sense). However, with the
PoE directly in mind at this point, we can avoid this problem
(like any other at this most basic level).
2. I guess we can't get rid of this one without the same
"drop" of reasoning as in 1.
3. I do not see the problem here. You are not supposed to
be receiving ANY data at all, if it wasn't for time which
is apparently another basic term, apparently. But, making
distinctions of the type of data is a materialist's problem.
In simpler terms, I could equivalently say that the fact
that I can hear an apple falling from a tree and then
I see the moment that it fell is somehow a sign of an
external mechanism (intellegence ?) at work. No. I receive
data all the time and this type of distinctions is irrelevant
for solipsism - it's not a reasonable proof of other
interacting minds.
btw, the "trend" argument, that you mentioned in your response,ragarding the observation of the Universe as
orderly - does appear to be reasonable, but it still
seems impossible (as expected) to make any objective scale
of the issue.
Also, I was wondering what, if at all, was your answer
to Descartes's statement - "I think, therefore I am." in Mentat's
poll ?
Doubt or shout !
Live long and prosper.
Who said I believe in solipsism ?!
I try not to believe at all. I am not supportive of either
solipsism or materialism. Further more, I think that occasionaly
the people who do believe in one of these approaches tend
to give it too much meaning and credit for things that are not
at all part of the basic premise, which is reflective of their
personal bias that "convinced" them of a specific approach.
What I was doing is trying to show that arguments for/against
solipsism/materialism are as huge in number as the amount
of ways of approaching the subject and each of them may be
supportive of either possibility.
Tom, to tell you the truth my argument is problematic
because it deals with thought, which is in itself a problematic concept because first of all it's basic and thus has no definition and because it is not necessarily present whether solipsism is right or wrong. But, like I said, there are huge if not infinite
ways of approaching the subject.
The best, simplest and most basic way of approaching solipsism
and materialism, in my opinion, is as I recently wrote in one of Mentat's threads:
Solipsism says - observation = existence and
materialism says - observation = part of existence (or even none).
It is also rather simple to see here why no decisive
solution is, apparently, possible.
As for your points(I will try not to slide into the most basic
level - wher it naturally becomes pretty easy and boring, but
rather try to oppose them on their own level, as much as possible
of course
):1. Reading some of what you said in your last response I
can say that this apparently reaches "down" to the PoE itself.
That is, if indeed solipsism says that ALL is in the mind
then it does indeed clearly mean that we must at least
know the rules (even if the connection of them and their
application and them also apparently being part of the
application still doesn't make sense). However, with the
PoE directly in mind at this point, we can avoid this problem
(like any other at this most basic level).
2. I guess we can't get rid of this one without the same
"drop" of reasoning as in 1.
3. I do not see the problem here. You are not supposed to
be receiving ANY data at all, if it wasn't for time which
is apparently another basic term, apparently. But, making
distinctions of the type of data is a materialist's problem.
In simpler terms, I could equivalently say that the fact
that I can hear an apple falling from a tree and then
I see the moment that it fell is somehow a sign of an
external mechanism (intellegence ?) at work. No. I receive
data all the time and this type of distinctions is irrelevant
for solipsism - it's not a reasonable proof of other
interacting minds.
btw, the "trend" argument, that you mentioned in your response,ragarding the observation of the Universe as
orderly - does appear to be reasonable, but it still
seems impossible (as expected) to make any objective scale
of the issue.
Also, I was wondering what, if at all, was your answer
to Descartes's statement - "I think, therefore I am." in Mentat's
poll ?
Doubt or shout !
Live long and prosper.