by hackenslash wrote:Frozenworld wrote:As usual you have nothing to disprove it.
Your logical fallacy is: onus probandi. Scepticism is the rebuttable position.
You don't only have nothing to prove it, as a basic matter of logic because, since onus probandi reduces to ipse dixit - essentially the evacuant of your rectal sphincter - you have nothing at all.I've already explained why sensation isn't evidence against solipsism: https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-of- ... Pete-Ashly
And we've explained ad nauseam why evidence is not required against something entirely without evidence. The burden of provision of evidence is on the affirmative claim. This is among the most rudimentary principles of epistemology, expressed in serious circles as the principle that the null hypothesis can never be falsified, a.k.a. the problem of induction.
This is really simple, straightforward logic, which tells us you haven't the first clue how to draw a valid inference.
And the burden is on you to show that there is an external reality, which you haven't.
Apparently hallucinations and lucid dreams are all created by the brain as the link showed, so what evidence can you have for there being a reality external to yourself.
If anyone can't draw a valid inference it's you guys. Nothing you have mentioned suggests an external reality that is provable. All "Evidence" is through sensation which doesn't prove anything (especially given the case of illusions and how dreams and hallucinations work).
YOU are the ones positing a world out there and the burden rests with you to get evidence for it, but the only way to do that is through sensation which cannot be verified by any external source. In an epistemological sense you are trapped.
Every point you make is guilty of the trilemma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
Dissent – The uncertainty demonstrated by the differences of opinions among philosophers and people in general.
Progress ad infinitum – All proof rests on matters themselves in need of proof, and so on to infinity. See regress argument.
Relation – All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as they are looked upon from different points of view.
Assumption – The truth asserted is based on an unsupported assumption.
Circularity – the truth asserted involves a circularity of proofs (known in scholasticism as "diallelus")
In short you and I have got nothing.
