On Idealism, repeated

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#141  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 09, 2021 7:40 am

Frozenworld wrote:http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philosophy/how-do-metaphysical-idealists-avoid-solipsism-t37685-40.html#p1646844

Just want to say I'm new here and I was brought here by the idealism thread, the one above.

I'm mostly puzzled by how people can assume their "mind god" or mentalism when there is nothing to suggest such a thing and that the experiences that they have which support this can be accounted for by neuroscience, like much of the mystical stuff. When presented with the evidence from science for such things, like chemicals causing feelings, the replies tend to border on incredulity. I mean that seems to be the usual response to scientific discoveries, most of which contradict our view of reality.

But looking at the whole thing, mentalism seems on par with religion in terms of knowledge. I also don't see how idealism gets out of solipsism without making too many leaps and irrational conclusions.




This post - your first on the forum - is completely untrue. This is not at all reflective of your position. You're dishonestly pretending to just be interested when in fact you want to propose this, you just don't want to have to defend it as that is a damn sight harder than merely pointing at random articles and videos and saying 'can you dispute this?'.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: On Idealism, repeated

#142  Postby SafeAsMilk » Jan 09, 2021 6:06 pm

I will say that although Frozenworld missed the boat by about 10 years, this sort of thing has been generally useful and educational for the internet in that it shows you how to detect bullshit where the presenter is trying overly-hard to appear reasonable. At one time it may have been an effective strategy, these days you can smell it from a mile off.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14597
Age: 41
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#143  Postby Frozenworld » Jan 12, 2021 2:14 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philosophy/how-do-metaphysical-idealists-avoid-solipsism-t37685-40.html#p1646844

Just want to say I'm new here and I was brought here by the idealism thread, the one above.

I'm mostly puzzled by how people can assume their "mind god" or mentalism when there is nothing to suggest such a thing and that the experiences that they have which support this can be accounted for by neuroscience, like much of the mystical stuff. When presented with the evidence from science for such things, like chemicals causing feelings, the replies tend to border on incredulity. I mean that seems to be the usual response to scientific discoveries, most of which contradict our view of reality.

But looking at the whole thing, mentalism seems on par with religion in terms of knowledge. I also don't see how idealism gets out of solipsism without making too many leaps and irrational conclusions.




This post - your first on the forum - is completely untrue. This is not at all reflective of your position. You're dishonestly pretending to just be interested when in fact you want to propose this, you just don't want to have to defend it as that is a damn sight harder than merely pointing at random articles and videos and saying 'can you dispute this?'.


That is not true at all. What I am trying to do is see whether any of the stuff I have cited is actually support for the position I am trying to disprove, or at the very least weaken. That entire shroomery thread to me seemed to raise strong points for solipsism and I don't have the knowledge or even capacity to string together a rebuttal to any of them. I've already posted quotes from the threads so people don't have to read it all, but I'm still not seeing how others aren't convinced by them when I am.
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 44

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#144  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 12, 2021 5:36 am

Frozenworld wrote:
That is not true at all. What I am trying to do is see whether any of the stuff I have cited is actually support for the position I am trying to disprove, or at the very least weaken.


Sorry FW - I simply don't believe you.


Frozenworld wrote:That entire shroomery thread to me seemed to raise strong points for solipsism and I don't have the knowledge or even capacity to string together a rebuttal to any of them.


If that's true, and you don't have the knowledge of capacity to string together a rebuttal, then why would you have the knowledge of capacity to assess that it has 'strong points for solipsism'? These are mutually contradictory points.


Frozenworld wrote:I've already posted quotes from the threads so people don't have to read it all, but I'm still not seeing how others aren't convinced by them when I am.


And here we've gone all the way round the merry-go-round again.

You're just asking about X.
You want other people to rebut X.
You're convinced by X.

Whichever way you slice this, you are the proponent and it is down to you - in a discussion format - to take the affirmative and make a coherent argument that can either be convincing or be rebutted.

Further, if you were actually genuinely interested, you would be taking note of the rebuttals offered and questioning them to try to understand. Instead, you're ignoring the majority of replies and then simply tossing in another wall of text written by someone else which you say is relevant but which appears to be just a pile of nonsense to the point it could well have been generated by a bot.

There is not one single cogent point amidst those written links you've sent, and the 40+ minute long videos (at least the parts you've eventually pointed to when asked to specify) don't contain an argument for solipsism at all.

I don't believe you're engaging in good faith argument.

https://medium.com/s/story/a-field-guid ... 4f194afbc9

What’s a bad faith argument?

The hallmark of a bad-faith argument is that it disguises the core point of a debate rather than addressing issues, beliefs, and values head-on.

Bad faith arguments aren’t “real” positions; they’re proxy positions people take for rhetorical purposes.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#145  Postby laklak » Jan 12, 2021 3:16 pm

FW, there have been beaucoup posts refuting the points you posted, you ignore them.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 66
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#146  Postby zoon » Jan 13, 2021 10:36 am

Frozenworld wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Ask someone who thinks metaphysical debates are of any use. I have made it abundantly clear that I am not among them, and I repeatedly explained why.

In this thread I implied (post #37) it might be those "who will step into the path of a fast moving truck because they think the truck only exists in their mind."

In the other thread you started on the same topic I explained similarly (post #12) that "this particular assertion, that colour and sound only exist in our minds, once again serves to demonstrate the irrelevance and utter uselessness of solipsism. True or not, it makes no difference to your behaviour. When you approach a red traffic light (which solipsism insists doesn't exist except in your mind), you do not keep driving regardless because colour is just in your mind, or because your perception of red may differ from that of other people (who also don't even exist except in your mind). When you look like going through the red light, and a passenger in your car screams "Stop!", you do not ignore it because the sound (and passenger for that matter) only exists in your mind."


That doesn't really answer my question though. Also doesn't science itself operate on the metaphysical assumption of an external reality and matter? Isn't matter unproveable?

Also found a proof for solipsism, though my gripe about it is that unborn is not a state: https://qr.ae/pNJ0s7

The question is irrelevant because whether there is an external world or it's all in your mind makes no difference to your behaviour. The same applies to science. We cannot prove or disprove metaphysical propositions that are supposed to have universal applications.

The so-called proof of solipsism you linked to is utter nonsense. How do we test that we have woken up? I had a dream once in which I repeatedly dreamt that I had woken up.


Except it does matter. IF it really is all in my head then there is no point to doing anything. If none of it is real then nothing matters. IT would radically alter my behavior.

Your problem here doesn’t seem to be so much idealism or solipsism, as universal scepticism, which is equally the background to the scientific view. There’s no way of proving induction, the principle that the future resembles the past. David Hume pointed this out in the eighteenth century, and nobody’s refuted him yet. We cannot be certain of what’s going to happen next.

You say that accepting this would radically alter your behaviour, there would be no point in doing anything. My view is that if we don’t know anything, including that, then the answer to “Why do anything?” is probably “Why not?” Do you find that sitting around doing nothing makes you happier than carrying on much as before?

I’m agreeing with David Hume when he wrote: “This sceptical doubt, both with respect to reason and the senses, is a malady, which can never be radically cured, but must return upon us every moment, however we may chase it away, and sometimes may seem entirely free from it ….Carelessness and inattention alone can afford us any remedy…For this reason I rely entirely upon them….” (I’m using the chapter on Hume in Russell’s “History of Western Philosophy”, where Russell quotes from Hume’s 1740 “Treatise of Human Nature”)
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3230

Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#147  Postby Frozenworld » Jan 17, 2021 4:15 am

You say that accepting this would radically alter your behaviour, there would be no point in doing anything. My view is that if we don’t know anything, including that, then the answer to “Why do anything?” is probably “Why not?” Do you find that sitting around doing nothing makes you happier than carrying on much as before?


Generally my stance is the "why do anything" since the "why not" aspect of it has already been answered.

Further, if you were actually genuinely interested, you would be taking note of the rebuttals offered and questioning them to try to understand. Instead, you're ignoring the majority of replies and then simply tossing in another wall of text written by someone else which you say is relevant but which appears to be just a pile of nonsense to the point it could well have been generated by a bot.

There is not one single cogent point amidst those written links you've sent, and the 40+ minute long videos (at least the parts you've eventually pointed to when asked to specify) don't contain an argument for solipsism at all.


FW, there have been beaucoup posts refuting the points you posted, you ignore them.


There have not. Most of it has been just calling the thing nonsense without addressing the quotes I listed or the replies that I have to the tiny handful of good posts that rebutted them (like how we presuppose we are experiencing a thing). If I keep repeating something it means someone has not addressed it.

Also there is a difference between not being able to have an answer against something and being credulous. The way the replies in favor of it sound it seems like it's true but I don't know what else to say against it so I end up taking it as true. The two are mutually exclusive. Which is why I said your point was wrong.

https://askaphilosopher.org/2019/10/20/ ... ment-25306

I've browsed around a lot but unfortunately a lot of stuff tends to say that you can't prove solipsism wrong or right, but the same applies to and external reality and other people/minds. The link sort of mentions that in that all metaphysical hypothesis are ultimately unprovable and saying solipsism is both true and false, but I'm iffy on him calling solipsism a metaphysical position because it doesn't really explain anything at all.

But to reiterate, if I keep posting something it means people have not refuted or addressed it.
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 44

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: On Idealism, repeated

#148  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 17, 2021 4:51 am

Frozenworld wrote:
But to reiterate, if I keep posting something it means people have not refuted or addressed it.


'People' have no place in solipsism. You should refer instead to "my mental construct of people". You refute your own mouthpieces, apparently without effort. Your 'effort' is expended haranguing 'people' to address something you manifestly do not believe, yourself. That implies you're trolling. At the very least, you're failing to adopt the character of a solipsist.

Frozenworld wrote:
Also there is a difference between not being able to have an answer against something and being credulous.


You're treating this discourse as a kind of game, rather than as a conversation. It's a game to which you're making up rules as you go along. "No, you didn't answer it" is a game you're playing. The point you're not making is how to take you seriously. Making the arguments yourself, rather than relying on mouthpieces, would be a good start.

Frozenworld wrote:The way the replies in favor of it sound it seems like it's true but I don't know what else to say against it so I end up taking it as true.


To whom does it seem like it's true? To your mouthpieces certainly, but also, apparently, to you. That's still only your problem, mainly because you don't have a clue how to evaluate whether anything you've read is written by an expert. Publishing is free on the internet, in many ways. Peer reviewed journals are where you should go to find experts who you're willing to claim are making points that seem cogent to you. You have not done this, so it seems you don't recognize anyone's expertise but your own, based on your own feelings. This all makes your persistence idiotic.

Here's some writing that at least has a university domain attached to it. If you see anything written there that you think needs to be refuted, have a go at that. You will find the refutation elsewhere in the same article. You need nothing else to complete your little 'project'.

Frozenworld wrote:The link sort of mentions that in that all metaphysical hypothesis are ultimately unprovable and saying solipsism is both true and false, but I'm iffy on him calling solipsism a metaphysical position because it doesn't really explain anything at all.


Well, if you're obsessing about solipsism (that is, you can't stop thinking about it), perhaps you need to try another hobby. You haven't really managed to make solipsism anyone else's problem. All you're doing is making your obsession someone else's problem. You can get help for that.

Finally, if you're at all into self-diagnosis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism_syndrome
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29544
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#149  Postby Frozenworld » Jan 17, 2021 5:48 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:
But to reiterate, if I keep posting something it means people have not refuted or addressed it.


'People' have no place in solipsism. You refute your own mouthpieces, apparently without effort. Your 'effort' is expended haranguing 'people' to address something you manifestly do not believe, yourself. That implies you're trolling.

Frozenworld wrote:
Also there is a difference between not being able to have an answer against something and being credulous.


You're treating this discourse as a kind of game, rather than as a conversation. It's a game to which you're making up rules as you go along. "No, you didn't answer it" is a game you're playing. The point you're not making is how to take you seriously.

Frozenworld wrote:The way the replies in favor of it sound it seems like it's true but I don't know what else to say against it so I end up taking it as true.


That link to Stanford still doesn't address the quotes by ItStarrsAdam.

OR if they addressed the points here: https://ideasinhat.com/2020/05/13/why-solipsism-is-ok/

Because apparently the popular arguments against it don't render it incompatible with them: ethical, evolution, or anything else really. It sounds like the main reason is that cosmic loneliness is hard to accept for folks and the chance of it being right is scary.

To repeat, I don't want it to be true, but I also don't want to be wrong. Your wiki link is irrelevant. I want to be right but apparently realism doesn't have much evidence going for it and I don't know how to respond.


To whom does it seem like it's true? To your mouthpieces certainly, but also, apparently, to you. That's still only your problem, mainly because you don't have a clue how to evaluate whether anything you've read is written by an expert. Publishing is free on the internet, in many ways. Peer reviewed journals are where you should go to find experts who you're willing to claim are making points that seem cogent to you. You have not done this, so it seems you don't recognize anyone's expertise but your own, based on your own feelings. This all makes your persistence idiotic.

Here's some writing that at least has a university domain attached to it. If you see anything written there that you think needs to be refuted, have a go at that. You will find the refutation elsewhere in the same article. You need nothing else to complete your little 'project'.

Frozenworld wrote:The link sort of mentions that in that all metaphysical hypothesis are ultimately unprovable and saying solipsism is both true and false, but I'm iffy on him calling solipsism a metaphysical position because it doesn't really explain anything at all.


Well, if you're obsessing about solipsism (that is, you can't stop thinking about it), perhaps you need to try another hobby. You haven't really managed to make solipsism anyone else's problem. All you're doing is making your obsession someone else's problem. You can get help for that.

Finally, if you're at all into self-diagnosis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism_syndrome
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 44

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#150  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 17, 2021 6:02 am

Oops, FW. You forgot to separate your own thoughts from mine. How typical.

Frozenworld wrote:
That link to Stanford still doesn't address the quotes by ItStarrsAdam.


You didn't take the time to read the Stanford article, FW. That would have taken you hours to do properly, so that you'd know what points it addresses and what points it doesn't. Your protests are phony from beginning to end.

By the way, the tactic you're using, "cosmic loneliness is scary" sounds better coming from god-botherers. They're the sorts of folks who say things like, "you don't want to believe in god because the idea scares you". Solipsism, as scary as you make it out to be, has nothing on materialist or realist existential dread. You should probably become a theist first, if you are not one already, and then solipsism will be lots easier for you to swallow. Solipsists are wusses who can't tolerate good old existential dread.

Frozenworld wrote:It sounds like the main reason is that cosmic loneliness is hard to accept for folks and the chance of it being right is scary.

To repeat, I don't want it to be true, but I also don't want to be wrong.


What you want is irrelevant. The chance of it being right is scary, to you. What do you reckon? 50-50? Do you know about Pascal's Wager? Your estimate of chance is similar. That you are so ignorant of chance is what is scary.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Jan 17, 2021 8:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29544
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#151  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 17, 2021 8:27 am

Frozenworld wrote:
There have not. Most of it has been just calling the thing nonsense without addressing the quotes I listed or the replies that I have to the tiny handful of good posts that rebutted them (like how we presuppose we are experiencing a thing). If I keep repeating something it means someone has not addressed it.

Also there is a difference between not being able to have an answer against something and being credulous. The way the replies in favor of it sound it seems like it's true but I don't know what else to say against it so I end up taking it as true. The two are mutually exclusive. Which is why I said your point was wrong.


Your paragraphs are contradictory.

First paragraph: someone said X, I don't know whether it's right, but person said X so it's true.

Second paragraph: people in this thread said Y, I don't know what's right, but they are wrong because someone else said not Y.

You want to talk about mutual exclusivity? You just exemplified it.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#152  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 17, 2021 9:46 am

Frozenworld wrote:
Generally my stance is the "why do anything" since the "why not" aspect of it has already been answered.


Do you wonder why you breathe?

I mean, there's actually a long, complicated reason as to why you breathe that dates back billions of years - a process that caused changes over time that in turn caused changes to the process itself, and that topic has real depth and substance to it. You could spend a lifetime learning about this and potentially increase the sum of human knowledge with respect to understanding why we breathe.

But I doubt you really wonder why you personally breathe each time you do so even though it's integral to your continued ability to wonder.

Rather, you're the editor of the focus of your wonder - you've decided what's worth wondering about and what's not worth wondering about. But the term 'decision' there suggests you were the agent of those decisions, that you weighed them up critically and convinced yourself through your inquiry that X topic is worth wonder, while Y topic isn't. Are you sure that's the case? Have you really considered why a given topic causes you wonder while another doesn't?

Your posts here do not reflect a neutral interest in a topic. A neutral interest would not only be open to receiving and exploring arguments for and against a proposition, but also be open to questioning whether the proposition itself has sufficient merit in the first instance. You seem intent on stating the proposition MUST have merit, but in support you present other peoples' written ideas which you say you can't really process, but which you say you lend credence to. Meanwhile, you dismiss criticisms of those written ideas which - remember - you've said you can't process, and continue expecting other people to respond to them in a way that satisfies you.

The fact here is that you've 'decided' that this topic has worth, but you can't show that it has worth, you can't provide any argument showing that it has worth, and you admit that the arguments you forward are not ones you understand. At this point, all you've got is an unjustified belief. What is anyone supposed to do with that? You may as well - state your belief, then move on. No discussion can ensue if you insist your belief is valid while being unwilling to inspect its validity.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#153  Postby zoon » Jan 17, 2021 9:55 am

Frozenworld wrote:
You say that accepting this would radically alter your behaviour, there would be no point in doing anything. My view is that if we don’t know anything, including that, then the answer to “Why do anything?” is probably “Why not?” Do you find that sitting around doing nothing makes you happier than carrying on much as before?


Generally my stance is the "why do anything" since the "why not" aspect of it has already been answered.

If your stance is “why do anything”, does that include “why eat”? Would you plan to continue with mealtimes if you reach the conclusion that food, along with the rest of the external world, is a product of your imagination and doesn’t really exist?

It’s not just about food, we do everything because it makes us feel more comfortable or happier, including, for example, looking after children, taking a moral stance on racism (for or against), or mulling over the ontological status of minds.
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3230

Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#154  Postby Frozenworld » Jan 26, 2021 2:54 am

Cito di Pense wrote:Oops, FW. You forgot to separate your own thoughts from mine. How typical.

Frozenworld wrote:
That link to Stanford still doesn't address the quotes by ItStarrsAdam.


You didn't take the time to read the Stanford article, FW. That would have taken you hours to do properly, so that you'd know what points it addresses and what points it doesn't. Your protests are phony from beginning to end.

By the way, the tactic you're using, "cosmic loneliness is scary" sounds better coming from god-botherers. They're the sorts of folks who say things like, "you don't want to believe in god because the idea scares you". Solipsism, as scary as you make it out to be, has nothing on materialist or realist existential dread. You should probably become a theist first, if you are not one already, and then solipsism will be lots easier for you to swallow. Solipsists are wusses who can't tolerate good old existential dread.

Frozenworld wrote:It sounds like the main reason is that cosmic loneliness is hard to accept for folks and the chance of it being right is scary.

To repeat, I don't want it to be true, but I also don't want to be wrong.


What you want is irrelevant. The chance of it being right is scary, to you. What do you reckon? 50-50? Do you know about Pascal's Wager? Your estimate of chance is similar. That you are so ignorant of chance is what is scary.


Having read it over again my point is still correct that it doesn't address what the OP in the shroomery thread is arguing, but then again they never do. College discussions on solipsism tend to stick to pretty tame responses.

Solipsists understand ACTUAL dread not the materialist nonsense you call dread. Cosmic loneliness of solipsism trumps any sort of nihilism anyone can come up with because you are eternally alone with no other, because they never were. Seems you don't understand what is scary.
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 44

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#155  Postby Frozenworld » Jan 26, 2021 2:59 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:
Generally my stance is the "why do anything" since the "why not" aspect of it has already been answered.


Do you wonder why you breathe?

I mean, there's actually a long, complicated reason as to why you breathe that dates back billions of years - a process that caused changes over time that in turn caused changes to the process itself, and that topic has real depth and substance to it. You could spend a lifetime learning about this and potentially increase the sum of human knowledge with respect to understanding why we breathe.

But I doubt you really wonder why you personally breathe each time you do so even though it's integral to your continued ability to wonder.

Rather, you're the editor of the focus of your wonder - you've decided what's worth wondering about and what's not worth wondering about. But the term 'decision' there suggests you were the agent of those decisions, that you weighed them up critically and convinced yourself through your inquiry that X topic is worth wonder, while Y topic isn't. Are you sure that's the case? Have you really considered why a given topic causes you wonder while another doesn't?

Your posts here do not reflect a neutral interest in a topic. A neutral interest would not only be open to receiving and exploring arguments for and against a proposition, but also be open to questioning whether the proposition itself has sufficient merit in the first instance. You seem intent on stating the proposition MUST have merit, but in support you present other peoples' written ideas which you say you can't really process, but which you say you lend credence to. Meanwhile, you dismiss criticisms of those written ideas which - remember - you've said you can't process, and continue expecting other people to respond to them in a way that satisfies you.

The fact here is that you've 'decided' that this topic has worth, but you can't show that it has worth, you can't provide any argument showing that it has worth, and you admit that the arguments you forward are not ones you understand. At this point, all you've got is an unjustified belief. What is anyone supposed to do with that? You may as well - state your belief, then move on. No discussion can ensue if you insist your belief is valid while being unwilling to inspect its validity.


Not at all. I'm trying to find arguments that address the points I have found that sadly lend strength to solipsism but so far they have fallen short. I haven't decided this topic has worth, rather it has had worth for thousands of years but alas the problem has never had a solution. Even modern neuroscience and quantum physics lends more strength to it than our notion of an external reality and other minds. We know the brain "hallucinates" conscious reality in that it builds it according to sensory data, but the problem of solipsism is this can never be verified.

Why do we breath is a stupid and trivial question, it genuinely doesn't matter at all. The question of how do we know other people exist, or even the world, is far more important and so far has no solution. People take it for granted, saying it's obvious. But the more one thinks about it the less they know and finally they have to face the fact that they can't be sure other people are real or exist.

I don't want this to be true or have merit. But unfortunately once you start questioning the assumptions you make about reality it's hard to stop and things are never the same after that. Everything is less solid and clear.
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 44

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: On Idealism, repeated

#156  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 26, 2021 3:12 am

Frozenworld wrote:Not at all. I'm trying to find arguments that address the points I have found that sadly lend strength to solipsism but so far they have fallen short.


Once again...

You can't seem to actually state these supposed "points that... lend strength to solipsism" - what you keep doing is citing blocks of text or hour long videos without being able to summarize what you think is relevant.

You have stated you don't actually understand the "points" that you believe "lend strength to solipsism" - so why do you believe that they do lend support if you don't understand them?


Frozenworld wrote:I haven't decided this topic has worth,...


I disagree. I think the contrary is pretty clear.


Frozenworld wrote:... rather it has had worth for thousands of years...


Just not true at all.



Frozenworld wrote:... but alas the problem has never had a solution.


Non-problems don't have solutions because solutions can only solve real things.


Frozenworld wrote: Even modern neuroscience and quantum physics lends more strength to it than our notion of an external reality and other minds.


Bullshit.


Frozenworld wrote: We know the brain "hallucinates" conscious reality in that it builds it according to sensory data, but the problem of solipsism is this can never be verified.


No we don't, and even were that the case, this lends precisely fuck all support to solipsism.


Frozenworld wrote:Why do we breath is a stupid and trivial question, it genuinely doesn't matter at all.


:lol:

It's not at all trivial - it's just that you haven't bothered to think about it or to look into the available material. You're making my point for me perfectly.


Frozenworld wrote:The question of how do we know other people exist, or even the world, is far more important and so far has no solution.


Says no one credible.


Frozenworld wrote:People take it for granted, saying it's obvious.


Like saying that the reason we breathe is trivial, you mean?


Frozenworld wrote:But the more one thinks about it the less they know and finally they have to face the fact that they can't be sure other people are real or exist.


This is just clownery now FW - I despise lies.


Frozenworld wrote:I don't want this to be true or have merit. But unfortunately once you start questioning the assumptions you make about reality it's hard to stop and things are never the same after that. Everything is less solid and clear.


This is intentional obfusctation - you want to mystify the world, not address any real substance, that's why you're still yammering nothings at people after dozens of posts with hundreds of words. You've not presented a single iota of value in support of the conclusion you desperately want to draw, and your conclusion simply hangs unsupported except by your desire to consider it valuable.

Perhaps if you were to engage in honest discussion, you might be able to resolve the litany of confusions you have, but as you appear unwilling or unable to do so, then self-mystification is all you're going to achieve.

Tide goes in, tide goes out - you can't explain it!
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#157  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 26, 2021 6:04 am

The song's title gives the game away, Frozenworld's position ("you didn't refute it, so my point stands. So says I"), but at least you get to listen to some music and see some disturbing images, something FW, who lacks anything resembling talent, cannot supply:

Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29544
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#158  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 26, 2021 6:17 am

Frozenworld wrote:But unfortunately once you start questioning the assumptions you make about reality it's hard to stop and things are never the same after that. Everything is less solid and clear.


Frozenworld: So says I.

Me: I don't think you're questioning anything. You say you are, which is different. You could demonstrate that you're doing any thinking by making your own points instead of using walls of text you claim to have read, and apparently swallow whole. You say you don't want solipsism to be true, but never make the argument that it is true. Somebody I never heard of has convinced you.

I'm not personally responsible for your gullibility. You are.

Frozenworld wrote:
Solipsists understand ACTUAL dread not the materialist nonsense you call dread. Cosmic loneliness of solipsism trumps any sort of nihilism anyone can come up with because you are eternally alone with no other, because they never were. Seems you don't understand what is scary.


Bend a spoon. Show us the awesome power of your dread, instead of whining in a text box. You're looking like the typical dimwit who's transfixed by the sight of his own typed words, stored on a server somewhere.

In a way, I can understand making a psychotic break; things have gone so far to shit that it might as well not really be happening. One day you'll wake up to an orderly who insists you not miss the bedpan, or have died young.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29544
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#159  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 26, 2021 10:04 am

Sorry, I would read the text that a non other entity has written, but I just unfortunately hallucinated a truck speeding towards me, for some reason, and that hallucination resulted in me having severe hallucinated traumatic injuries complete with hallucinated internal bleeding, hallucinated loss of limbs, and hallucinated brain death. Fortunately, as no one else exists, then I can just hallucinate that I am perfectly ok and everything will be alright. So long hallucinatory friends, and welcome back hallucinated me.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#160  Postby BlackBart » Jan 26, 2021 10:25 am

You seem to be experiencing some mental distress, Frozenworld. I'd seriously recommend you see a healthcare professional rather than railing at strangers on the Internet. Feel free to take umbrage because that means there's someone to take umbrage at. :thumbup:
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12233
Age: 58
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest