...not be omniscient? Or rather - if you hold the position of metaphysical solipsism, why aren't you omniscient?

Isn't it innate to this position that all of reality is contained within the mind, and so you should therefore be the ultimate source of the reality that seems to surround you? Why is it the case then that you do not know every minute detail about everything in existence, if you are all that truly exists, and the source of all that exists? With no other physical or metaphysical creating force or mechanism responsible for the existence of reality but your mind, shouldn't you be omniscient?

Seriously meant, non-rhetorical, non-flippant question.

I'm still getting over the fact that I discovered general relativity (not Einstein).

Anyway, I'm off to update wikipedia.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:I'm still getting over the fact that I discovered general relativity (not Einstein).

Anyway, I'm off to update wikipedia.

Hang on there. Einstein only exists in your mind anyway. So what's the hurry?

No. Omniscience concerns knowledge of propositions. Consider mathematical truths. Why think we would know all such truths simply because nothing exists besides the self.

Mick wrote:No. Omniscience concerns knowledge of propositions. Consider mathematical truths. Why think we would know all such truths simply because nothing exists besides the self.

Because in an existence where only one mind exists, and all of existence is in that mind, there could be no source of anything other than that mind, otherwise that mind would not be 'alone' and metaphysical solipsism collapses? If mathematical truths (for example) exist independently of that mind, is this person then truly holding a metaphysical solipsist world view? Not according to the definitions I've seen. And if the solipsist mind is the ultimate source of all things - is all things - how can the solipsist not know all things that he/she is the source of? If he/she does not know, can these things then exist at all, under this view? If the mind, that supposedly contains all of existence, does not contain all knowledge of all things - can that which that mind does not contain (know) then exist?

John P. M. wrote:

Mick wrote:No. Omniscience concerns knowledge of propositions. Consider mathematical truths. Why think we would know all such truths simply because nothing exists besides the self.

Because in an existence where only one mind exists, and all of existence is in that mind, there could be no source of anything other than that mind, otherwise that mind would not be 'alone' and metaphysical solipsism collapses? If mathematical truths (for example) exist independently of that mind, is this person then truly holding a metaphysical solipsist world view? Not according to the definitions I've seen. And if the solipsist mind is the ultimate source of all things - is all things - how can the solipsist not know all things that he/she is the source of? If he/she does not know, can these things then exist at all, under this view? If the mind, that supposedly contains all of existence, does not contain all knowledge of all things - can that which that mind does not contain (know) then exist?

I'm unsure what source is supposed to mean here. What is the source of true propositions? Weird. I suppose this depends partially on how we should understand it. Does MS also exclude abstract objects? In any case, even if it didn't, we don't need to be conscious or aware of every true proposition, there are a near infinite number of them. That we don't know them all is not entailed by the existence of other things, we simply don't have the epistemic capacity. There's nothing within MS which suggests we need to be consciously aware or know every truth, even if they are subjective in some way. It's confusing metaphysical theses with epistemology.

The definition of metaphysical solipsism that seems to be most frequent when I Google it, is this:

"Metaphysical solipsism is the variety of idealism which is based on the argument that no reality exists other than one's own mind or mental states, and that the individual mind is the whole of reality and the external world has no independent existence."

If everything we call reality is within one's own mind, then for any thing to exist, it would have to reside in that mind AFAICS. And if it resides in that mind (has no independent existence), it is known by that mind AFAICS. Because if that mind is not aware of a specific thing, then that specific thing which the mind is not aware of has no ground to exist, as it is then not part of the mind / mental states which is the whole of reality. Seems to me.

John P. M. wrote:...not be omniscient? Or rather - if you hold the position of metaphysical solipsism, why aren't you omniscient?

Isn't it innate to this position that all of reality is contained within the mind, and so you should therefore be the ultimate source of the reality that seems to surround you? Why is it the case then that you do not know every minute detail about everything in existence, if you are all that truly exists, and the source of all that exists? With no other physical or metaphysical creating force or mechanism responsible for the existence of reality but your mind, shouldn't you be omniscient?

Seriously meant, non-rhetorical, non-flippant question.

I probably resemble that position. Rumi expressed it as "I am Lost in God and God is found in me." Also "Try another way of looking. Try you looking and the whole universe seeing."

Your physical body and mind are mere specks in the greatness of reality. If you look to find that which observes you will never find it, as it does not exist in the way you are looking for it. Whatever tools or techniques you employ to see this observer will define it, and thus it will slip from your grasp. However, if you can detach your sense of identity from your body and thoughts and place them in that role of observer then you will be free from having to know everything and open to knowing what is important in this moment of reality. Hence concepts like "no mind" and "ego loss" get batted around. But you cannot know without a mind, you cannot be a person without an ego. Just as whatever tools and techniques you employ to observe the observer define it, the thoughts and sense of self you employ to allow you to observe define what you observe. Having thoughts and an ego are not optional, but they are not what you are looking for.

Our minds and desire to observe reality have brought us stunning tools and techniques with powerful results. This is a measure of something, but I am not really sure what. We are just one life form of a far greater diversity than exists at present, and all these forms expressed this same desire to manipulate reality. Indeed they all succeeded to the extent we are now venturing off the planet and looking into the depths of the microcosm and the span of the cosmos. We are just the current moments manifestation of this process.

Implicit in your question, I sense, is an awe at the staggering egotism of omniscience. It seems laughably blind. And I say what is blind is how you think it works. It doesn't "work" at all - you do. It just is, and you have the option to explore it. That is what life does - it organizes and defines and creates sense, all driven by an inner observer.

As best I can tell there is only one observer. Each one of us sees things and thus defines our separateness. It may be there are many, or even infinite, realities.If there were evidence of some might see that as evidence of multiple observers, but somehow for there to be evidence there must be connections, and if there are connections then they are not separate.

This is not a matter for science or even thinking. It is a matter for observation. It is a matter of living in freedom.

Steve wrote:

John P. M. wrote:...not be omniscient? Or rather - if you hold the position of metaphysical solipsism, why aren't you omniscient?

Isn't it innate to this position that all of reality is contained within the mind, and so you should therefore be the ultimate source of the reality that seems to surround you? Why is it the case then that you do not know every minute detail about everything in existence, if you are all that truly exists, and the source of all that exists? With no other physical or metaphysical creating force or mechanism responsible for the existence of reality but your mind, shouldn't you be omniscient?

Seriously meant, non-rhetorical, non-flippant question.

I probably resemble that position. Rumi expressed it as "I am Lost in God and God is found in me." Also "Try another way of looking. Try you looking and the whole universe seeing."

Your physical body and mind are mere specks in the greatness of reality. If you look to find that which observes you will never find it, as it does not exist in the way you are looking for it. Whatever tools or techniques you employ to see this observer will define it, and thus it will slip from your grasp. However, if you can detach your sense of identity from your body and thoughts and place them in that role of observer then you will be free from having to know everything and open to knowing what is important in this moment of reality. Hence concepts like "no mind" and "ego loss" get batted around. But you cannot know without a mind, you cannot be a person without an ego. Just as whatever tools and techniques you employ to observe the observer define it, the thoughts and sense of self you employ to allow you to observe define what you observe. Having thoughts and an ego are not optional, but they are not what you are looking for.

Our minds and desire to observe reality have brought us stunning tools and techniques with powerful results. This is a measure of something, but I am not really sure what. We are just one life form of a far greater diversity than exists at present, and all these forms expressed this same desire to manipulate reality. Indeed they all succeeded to the extent we are now venturing off the planet and looking into the depths of the microcosm and the span of the cosmos. We are just the current moments manifestation of this process.

Implicit in your question, I sense, is an awe at the staggering egotism of omniscience. It seems laughably blind. And I say what is blind is how you think it works. It doesn't "work" at all - you do. It just is, and you have the option to explore it. That is what life does - it organizes and defines and creates sense, all driven by an inner observer.

As best I can tell there is only one observer. Each one of us sees things and thus defines our separateness. It may be there are many, or even infinite, realities.If there were evidence of some might see that as evidence of multiple observers, but somehow for there to be evidence there must be connections, and if there are connections then they are not separate.

This is not a matter for science or even thinking. It is a matter for observation. It is a matter of living in freedom.

Well said, Steve.

LucidFlight wrote:I'm pretty sure Steve said something. As to what it was exactly that he said, I'm not really sure. Anyway, welcome back, LI. How's Egypt?

Hi LF,
I am not really back - just observing really (no pun intended). Even then, mostly observing the physics forum for the Higgs thingy.
Nor am I in Egypt, I left about 18 months ago and am currently in United Arab Emirates, where I did a year as a consultant. On Saturday 31st I am going back to Qatar - where I hope to stay put for a good few years.

Regarding the OP;
It seems simple enough to me that a hypothetical solipsist can believe he dont have to consciously know everything that his mind (in its totality of conscious and unconscious) knows, does or creates.

LucidFlight wrote: So, in fact, there is potential to know so much more, so long as one puts their mind to it, or perhaps practises the correct meditation? It's just that the default (for want of a better word) is our current state of encapsulation within a supposedly "advanced" ape brain, with corresponding body and senses, and its inherent perspective on reality. All right, I guess I can dig that. Thank you.

Meditation is not necessary. Some of us indulge as it seems to help train the mind. I think it truly is a matter of how the brain works. For the vast majority of us we drive ourselves nuts with it. Some are born with brains that are less easily distracted, and Ekhart Tolle claims to be able to stop thinking completely. I would not argue this point with with Mr Tolle, but neither would I accept that he has any extra knowledge of the world, having read a couple of his books. What he does seem to have is an ability to accept his perceptions for what they are and not be constantly turning things over in his mind. He also has demonstrated an ability to generate cash flow by talking about it then living off that cash in relative isolation.

LucidFlight wrote:Personally, I'm far too easily distracted. I don't think I shall ever gain the slightest glimpse of the totality of existence. Fortunately, though, I'm not too bothered about that. Mine is but a simple existence.

Maybe I'll try it in an alternate existence.

How about grasping the totality of your self? Screw all of everything "out there" - that is just an endless house of mirrors. You say "Mine is but a simple existence" yet you acknowledge you are easily distracted. Do you see the disconnect? I see it in myself all the time. What I realize is that I am the architect of "me", and I am trying to sort out how I do that, and to see if I can't make an improved version. Which itself contains a rather sad disconnect...

Little Idiot wrote:
Regarding the OP;
It seems simple enough to me that a hypothetical solipsist can believe he dont have to consciously know everything that his mind (in its totality of conscious and unconscious) knows, does or creates.

I suppose it depends on what exactly the mind is supposed to be constituted of, on metaphysical solipsism. For me with my view of things, it's easy enough to say that I don't have to be aware of everything for it to exist, as I think stuff has an independent existence, and in addition, I have physical memory in my brain that keeps information "in place" while I'm not consciously contemplating or aware of it.

But if the MS's 'mind' literally is everything, like the definitions say, then it seems to me that he will have to somehow keep everything in his mind; the trillions upon trillions of details of existence would have to be conjured by this one mind in order to be part of existence/reality.

Now, as you say, we could postulate that he needn't be consciously aware of everything, even if it's part of his mind / mental states. But if stuff can happen and come into being without him knowing it or being aware of it, then who's really "running the show"? His mind is after all all that exists. There is no other entity or process there to be responsible for the existence of anything, as far as I can see.

That's my thinking behind asking the question. I don't mean to be obtuse, it just falls into place like that for me.

John P. M. wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
Regarding the OP;
It seems simple enough to me that a hypothetical solipsist can believe he dont have to consciously know everything that his mind (in its totality of conscious and unconscious) knows, does or creates.

I suppose it depends on what exactly the mind is supposed to be constituted of, on metaphysical solipsism. For me with my view of things, it's easy enough to say that I don't have to be aware of everything for it to exist, as I think stuff has an independent existence, and in addition, I have physical memory in my brain that keeps information "in place" while I'm not consciously contemplating or aware of it.

But if the MS's 'mind' literally is everything, like the definitions say, then it seems to me that he will have to somehow keep everything in his mind; the trillions upon trillions of details of existence would have to be conjured by this one mind in order to be part of existence/reality.

Now, as you say, we could postulate that he needn't be consciously aware of everything, even if it's part of his mind / mental states. But if stuff can happen and come into being without him knowing it or being aware of it, then who's really "running the show"? His mind is after all all that exists. There is no other entity or process there to be responsible for the existence of anything, as far as I can see.

That's my thinking behind asking the question. I don't mean to be obtuse, it just falls into place like that for me.

I think its standard opinion that we dont know everything in our own mind, rather than postulation.
To say anyone knows everything in his own mind would be an impossible position to hold, would it not?

If we cant hold the position that one knows everything in his own mind, we have no option than to accept that we dont know everything in our own mind.

The MS is just as entitled to hold the view that he doesnt consciously know everything in his own mind, and thus should not expect to be omniscient.

To suport the position that the MS should be omniscient because the whole world is in his mind, you would first need to explain why you can hold the position that all things in the mind are known - which I suggested already is an impossible position to defend.

Little Idiot wrote:
I think its standard opinion that we dont know everything in our own mind, rather than postulation.
To say anyone knows everything in his own mind would be an impossible position to hold, would it not?

If we cant hold the position that one knows everything in his own mind, we have no option than to accept that we dont know everything in our own mind.

I... answered that in what you quoted. We don't have to know everything in our mind, because the data is stored physically somewhere in there, and so we don't need to always be consciously aware of it for it to still be there. And most everything put into that memory are representations of things that have independent existence from our mind. So we don't need to be aware of them for them to exist, because they exist independently (up for debate I'm sure, but not in this thread).

But this would not be the case for the MS. His mental states are everything. He can't put some of them aside to some storage as far as I can see, because there is no other place or substance in which to store them, and things don't have independent existence with regards to his mind either.