Philosophical viewpoint of solipsism

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Adam
Solipsism

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/solipsis.htm

There is one BIG problem with the idea: If the reality you are experiencing is the only one to which you have access, then the entire question becomes 100% irrelevent.

First I don't see why, and secondly, there can only be one reality (if more then one exist, they merge together into one reality).

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
One can, at one moment, for sure think that one's mind is the only real thing,

My position is that The Mind is the only real thing. Everything else - including 'me' - is a perspective of that Mind. I don't know what solipsists think, but there seems to be many deviations from my own line-of-thought (by them), according to you.

But we know the solipsist is not alone, and some day he will meet another mind, and they can talk and communicate about reality.

Different perspectives can meet in One Mind. It's no different than meeting various characters in your dreams.

And not only that, the reality thing seems to have objective existence, which does not depend on our mind.

The sensations of that reality are real. Anything which happens in your mind is real. But what else seems real beyond your sensation of it?

Therefore mankind developed science, to have a better picture of reality.

Science is the analysis of sensation. Our sensations are ordered... and the Laws of Physics are a reflection of this order. Science does not give us any keys to an external reality. Science merely shows us how our sensations work.

And guess what? The picture we have of reality, really positively affirms of there is reason to state that there is an objective reality out there, which is veryfiable in many ways, and which is independend of our mind.

Which scientific law verifies external reality?

So far science has never come up with one fact that makes us doubt about wether there is a material reality.

Science is the study of our perceptions/sensations. The reason why science hasn't come up with one fact to make us doubt the reality of these sensations, is because those sensations are real.
I can state - with all philosophical certainty - that science doesn't even address the true nature of reality! In the centuries since Galileo, not one scientific theory has ever addressed the nature of reality. Science just addresses the behaviour of that reality, and tries to unveil its order.
Only philosophy can even attempt to answer these questions. Not to make any inflammatory comments - but science is largely redundant when it comes to such matters as this.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
First I don't see why, and secondly, there can only be one reality (if more then one exist, they merge together into one reality).

You don't see why? It's because we can never prove it either way, if the only thing we have to go on is our own senses. Lifegazer uses this point of reasoning alot, so I'm sure you are familiar with it.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My position is that The Mind is the only real thing. Everything else - including 'me' - is a perspective of that Mind. I don't know what solipsists think, but there seems to be many deviations from my own line-of-thought (by them), according to you.

Different perspectives can meet in One Mind. It's no different than meeting various characters in your dreams.

The sensations of that reality are real. Anything which happens in your mind is real. But what else seems real beyond your sensation of it?

Science is the analysis of sensation. Our sensations are ordered... and the Laws of Physics are a reflection of this order. Science does not give us any keys to an external reality. Science merely shows us how our sensations work.

Which scientific law verifies external reality?

Science is the study of our perceptions/sensations. The reason why science hasn't come up with one fact to make us doubt the reality of these sensations, is because those sensations are real.
I can state - with all philosophical certainty - that science doesn't even address the true nature of reality! In the centuries since Galileo, not one scientific theory has ever addressed the nature of reality. Science just addresses the behaviour of that reality, and tries to unveil its order.
Only philosophy can even attempt to answer these questions. Not to make any inflammatory comments - but science is largely redundant when it comes to such matters as this.

In other words, you state that you can make claims about reality, that are not adressed and even open for scientific research, and not verifyable therefore.

What is your basis of your statements (for instance the existence of 'The Mind')? Your only arguments and only proof is your own mind, there is nothing that can be tested outside of it.
And the reasoning is flawed, because you first assert there is no such thing as an 'outside reality', but as this is exactly the position of a solipsist, you then argue there must exist 'The Mind'.

There is absolutely no basis on which you can argue for 'The Mind' cause all you know about is your own mind.

The cause for different minds having same experiences about the outer reality does not lead to 'The Mind' however, but to the material world outside of our consciousness.

The term 'The Mind' is rather meaningless, cause there is no way to test for the existence of such an entity. What makes the outer reality behave like or have the property of a mind?
What basis do you have to conclude that the outer reality isn't material, but mindfull. As far as this, you never gave any real argument for that.

The way we see reality, eanbles us to put meaning into reality.
For instance the formation of life forms, and their evolution, can be seen in such a context. But does that really mean some intelligent force guided evolution and other material processes?
This can't be stated on the basis of known phenomena and the laws of physics, so such statements are typical meta-physical.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
You don't see why? It's because we can never prove it either way, if the only thing we have to go on is our own senses. Lifegazer uses this point of reasoning alot, so I'm sure you are familiar with it.

The reasoning is flawed and speculative. What is the meaning of the existence of something, if we can not know about it?
Either it exists, and we can know about it, or it doesn't, and we can not even test it indirectly, then the assumption is meaningless.

 

[M. Gaspar]

What a species-centric point of view...

that the existence of something has no meaning unless WE can know about it!

I'll bet there are a LOT of things we don't know about (yet...if ever) that we don't know about or can test directly.

"Speculation" is not a four-letter word. It precedes theory, which precedes testing.

And...some things can be known ONLY by their EFFECTS.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
that the existence of something has no meaning unless WE can know about it!

I'll bet there are a LOT of things we don't know about (yet...if ever) that we don't know about or can test directly.

"Speculation" is not a four-letter word. It precedes theory, which precedes testing.

And...some things can be known ONLY by their EFFECTS.

I hope you see the difference between things we CAN know about (but do not yet know) and things we CAN NOT know about.

Some examples of the first:
- planets near stars, not yet discovered
- matter in galaxies or in between galaxies (dark matter components)
- etc.

Things we CAN NOT know about:
- parallel existing universes with no interaction whatsoever
- forms of matter with even in theory no interaction with kown matter

These things can only be theoretically postulated, but can never be verified (not even in directly).

 

[heusdens]

Objective Idealism versus Subjective Idealism

Within philosophical idealism, there are two main disciplines:

Objective Idealism

This philosophy postulates an 'Absolute Idea' (Hegel) as the primary substance. According to this philosophy everything is the result of an objective principle of mind. This ideal creature is existing outside of our own mind and independend of the human mind, and which is primary to the material world. Acc. to objective idealism, this creature, or this objective mindfull principle is the creator of the world, and the world is developing according to the laws set forth by this objective idea.

Representants of this philosophy are for instance: Plato, Thomas von Aquin, Leibniz and Hegel.

Philosophical directions that are part of this philosophy are: Newhegelianism, newplatonism and newthomismus.

Subjective Idealism

This comes down to the philosophy that sees all of reality as only consisting in the human mind itself. All things only exist in our mind, and not outside of it. The world is our consciousness. If this kind of reasoning is followed consequently, the conlusion is that the ONLY reality is the reality of one mind, and nothing else. This form is known as 'solipsism'.


Objective and subjective idealism are the two main disciplines within idealism. They have both in common that, wether this is in form of an objective mind outside the human mind, or the human mind itself, both oppose materialism in ascerting that the primary substance in the world is not matter, but mind.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
The reasoning is flawed and speculative. What is the meaning of the existence of something, if we can not know about it?
Either it exists, and we can know about it, or it doesn't, and we can not even test it indirectly, then the assumption is meaningless.

The fact that something exists does not pre-suppose that we can know about it, heusdens. Isn't that obvious?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
"Speculation" is not a four-letter word. It precedes theory, which precedes testing.

Just to clarify, theory does not precede testing. Hypothesis precedes testing, and, afterwards, may graduate to "theory".

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
I hope you see the difference between things we CAN know about (but do not yet know) and things we CAN NOT know about.

Some examples of the first:
- planets near stars, not yet discovered
- matter in galaxies or in between galaxies (dark matter components)
- etc.

Things we CAN NOT know about:
- parallel existing universes with no interaction whatsoever
- forms of matter with even in theory no interaction with kown matter

These things can only be theoretically postulated, but can never be verified (not even in directly).

There are however some things, such as the exact state of an individual particle (for example) that we cannot ever know.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Mentat...

Thanks. That was useful.

Meanwhile, what's your position on "speculation"?

Cannot someone "take the case" that something is so...then see how far they can take the premise until it falls apart -- or is torn apart by others?

Have not such speculations yielded THEORIES that were CONFIRMED ...down the road?

Am I being asked -- at least indirectly -- to keep my speculations to myself?

Frankly, I think I'm onto something (as opposed to "on" something! )...and WELCOME specific objections that force a response.

And if not here, where?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Thanks. That was useful.

Meanwhile, what's your position on "speculation"?

Cannot someone "take the case" that something is so...then see how far they can take the premise until it falls apart -- or is torn apart by others?

Have not such speculations yielded THEORIES that were CONFIRMED ...down the road?

Am I being asked -- at least indirectly -- to keep my speculations to myself?

Frankly, I think I'm onto something (as opposed to "on" something! )...and WELCOME specific objections that force a response.

And if not here, where?

No, no, please don't feel that you should keep your speculations to yourself. All I, personally, ask is that you not make them appear as though they were already theories.

My position on "speculation" is that a speculation is an hypothesis, provided it can be tested. If it's untestable then it's unscientific, and thus could never graduate to being a "theory".

 

[M. Gaspar]

Mentat...

Is it not true that there have been speculations in the past that have seemed untestable at the time -- hence, "unscientific" -- but, at a later date, the means of testing, measuring or even just detecting were found?

In the thread I originated -- A Conscious Universe? -- I asked how this speculation might be "proved".

Solipsism -- the subject of THIS thread -- is a philosophy that will NEVER graduate to a theory, because solipsists only talk to themselves!

If that myopic point of view is worth discussing, surely we can discuss the possibility of a Cosmic Mind.

Just not on this thread...

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
The fact that something exists does not pre-suppose that we can know about it, heusdens. Isn't that obvious?

No, cause it is a false pre-position. The existence of something can only be stated as a fact, because we have in theory the possibility to know about it.

Else, the famous P-particles would also have existence.
P-particles are particles that do not in any way interact withn normal matter, they can coexist at the same time and place as normal matter, so in theory the universe can be full of it, and they could be in plenty abundance residing inside your body and brain.

However, from their definition, it is absolutely impossible to test their existence. Therefore one can not state that such particles exist.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
There are however some things, such as the exact state of an individual particle (for example) that we cannot ever know.

Yes, thanks. Great! But they just belong in the second category, I am sorry I did not list them exhaustively (that would be quite impossible!)

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by heusdens
First I don't see why, and secondly, there can only be one reality (if more then one exist, they merge together into one reality).

Consider the Matrix as an analogy/example. If you can't do a Neo and "wake up" and suddenly experience something totally different, then what you have is reality. Everything else is just fairy tales making up a small tidbit of your reality. As the link I provided earlier points out, the entire idea is basically without foundation.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Cause and Effect...

Scientists speculate that there is "Dark Matter" to account for the "extra gravity" that seems to be needed to explain the movement of stars within their galaxies. They haven't found any Dark Matter as yet...only its EFFECT.

Scientists speculate that there must be "Dark Energy" to explain the accelerating expansion of the Universe. They can't DETECT it...only it's supposed EFFECT.

My challenge, then, might be to identify an EFFECT that suggests that the Universe may be conscious.

Gotta put my thinking cap on for that one.

And I better do it on another thread.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Scientists speculate that there is "Dark Matter" to account for the "extra gravity" that seems to be needed to explain the movement of stars within their galaxies. They haven't found any Dark Matter as yet...only its EFFECT.

Scientists speculate that there must be "Dark Energy" to explain the accelerating expansion of the Universe. They can't DETECT it...only it's supposed EFFECT.

My challenge, then, might be to identify an EFFECT that suggests that the Universe may be conscious.

Gotta put my thinking cap on for that one.

And I better do it on another thread.

That is not a TOO BIG challenge, cause we know the effect of the material reality was (amongst others) the appearence through billions of years of evolution of consciouss beings in the form of humans.

It can be states that the universe is conscious, cause it contains parts that are consciouss. In exactly the same way as I can state that I am consciouss, cause parts of me are consciouss.

But what does this help us to understand things? What does it clear?

We must put in mind that in order to distinguish conscioussness from non-consciousness, we usually refer to Nature and the processes of Nature as acting without consciousness, will or intent. Even so, we think of ourselves as having those properties, and we have come from Nature and are part of it.

Further, it must be noted that there isn't a clear line within Nature between consciousness and unconsciousness. We refer to Nature as unconscioussness, cause this allows us to distinguish ourselves from other processes in Nature.

 

[Mentat]

Heusdens, I still don't agree that we must be able to know about everything that exists. For example, P-particles: Just because it is impossible for us to know about them, doesn't mean that they don't exist, merely that we can never know about them. To say that our lack of ability to ever know about something means that it doesn't exist, is (IMO) anthro-egotistical.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
That is not a TOO BIG challenge, cause we know the effect of the material reality was (amongst others) the appearence through billions of years of evolution of consciouss beings in the form of humans.

It can be states that the universe is conscious, cause it contains parts that are consciouss. In exactly the same way as I can state that I am consciouss, cause parts of me are consciouss.

But what does this help us to understand things? What does it clear?

We must put in mind that in order to distinguish conscioussness from non-consciousness, we usually refer to Nature and the processes of Nature as acting without consciousness, will or intent. Even so, we think of ourselves as having those properties, and we have come from Nature and are part of it.

Further, it must be noted that there isn't a clear line within Nature between consciousness and unconsciousness. We refer to Nature as unconscioussness, cause this allows us to distinguish ourselves from other processes in Nature.

Let's put aside, at the moment, whether consciousness existed in some "fragmented" form in the early Universe...or whether consciousness has accreted -- like baryonic matter -- over time.

Let us just address why I'm bothering to think about whether the Universe is conscious (and responsive to all It's parts).

It might help us understand the forces behind the manifestation of "reality" out of "virtuality". If the Universe were conscious -- and in two-way "communication" with us (and everything else) -- and our (and Its) INTENTIONS had an EFFECT to the "lynchpin" of RANDOMNESS, then we might be inclined to ALIGN with this NATURAL PROCESS to CREATE that which we INTEND within our lives.

What might it "clear"? The notion that we are organic anomalies within an expanding MACHINE...and see ourselves (and Everything else) at a product of one Being's evolution.

I asked myself just now "What does this have to do with Solipsism?"...not wanting to stray offpoint too far. But then the answer came: just as Solipsists contend that "Nothing can be proved outside my mind." ...Materialists contend that "Nothing can exist that I can't measure directly."

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Heusdens, I still don't agree that we must be able to know about everything that exists. For example, P-particles: Just because it is impossible for us to know about them, doesn't mean that they don't exist, merely that we can never know about them. To say that our lack of ability to ever know about something means that it doesn't exist, is (IMO) anthro-egotistical.

The point is of course that postulating the existence of something that can not be proven even in theory, is a pointless debate.
Because the thought can not be tested against reality.

So why are you bothered about it in the first place? What purpose does it serve to claim the existence of something, which we never can know about?

There is no point. It has no purpose.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I asked myself just now "What does this have to do with Solipsism?"...not wanting to stray offpoint too far. But then the answer came: just as Solipsists contend that "Nothing can be proved outside my mind." ...Materialists contend that "Nothing can exist that I can't measure directly."

A solipsists claims that all of reality consists only of one's own thoughts and emotions, and such, and that there is not something existing outside of that.

Materialism claim that that is the case, there is a material reality outside of our thoughs and emotions. Materialism does not claim that things that can't be measured direclty do not exist. That is a ridiculous and false statement.
For instance a black hole we can never measure directly, but only indirectly (because the black hole influences nearby matter). In fact ALL of reality we measure indirectly, by measuring effects. All kinds of planets orbiting stars other then the sun, have not been measured direclty, but only by investigating the effects on the start itself (which "whobbles" a bit due to the gravitational attraction of the planet).

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
My challenge, then, might be to identify an EFFECT that suggests that the Universe may be conscious.

Well then, let us shift this topic until an EFFECT has been detected that would indicate that the universe is conscious.
And until that has been proven, let us just continue to claim that the universe is material.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
Well then, let us shift this topic until an EFFECT has been detected that would indicate that the universe is conscious.
And until that has been proven, let us just continue to claim that the universe is material.

OK. I'll sit tight.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
OK. I'll sit tight.

That's the wrong idea.

Better explore and study the world in greater detail, so you might find clues for your claims (or: conclude that the claims are baseless, and drop the hypothese).

At least: do something (your own motto!)

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
That's the wrong idea.

Better explore and study the world in greater detail, so you might find clues for your claims (or: conclude that the claims are baseless, and drop the hypothese).

At least: do something (your own motto!)

Did you really think I was going to "sit tight"?!

Don't you know me yet?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
The point is of course that postulating the existence of something that can not be proven even in theory, is a pointless debate.
Because the thought can not be tested against reality.

So why are you bothered about it in the first place? What purpose does it serve to claim the existence of something, which we never can know about?

There is no point. It has no purpose.

It has not purpose, to us. I know. I was just arguing the point, because what you said sounded wrong

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
M.Gasper:- "Originally posted by M. Gaspar
My challenge, then, might be to identify an EFFECT that suggests that the Universe may be conscious."

Well then, let us shift this topic until an EFFECT has been detected that would indicate that the universe is conscious.
And until that has been proven, let us just continue to claim that the universe is material.

It amuses me that a couple of universal-effects (you guys) can sit there conciously-seeking to unearth an effect of the universe which might prove that the universe is concious... and yet forget your own existences.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
It has not purpose, to us. I know. I was just arguing the point, because what you said sounded wrong

It does not only have no purpose to us but also has no purpose to anyone else we can know of, so in effect there is no one to which it has any purpose.