asdfjkl wrote:aand my q was still not answered
why the fuck should i ebleive in things that arent self evident if i only have access to self evident?
shouldnt it be self evident nothing other than the self evident exists?

Look guy. I might be talking to a dream figure here or an illusion. whatever. But I'll still respond.

I read a while back that you said you think you have OCD? If you do and you're not seeing someone and on proper meds then seriously go do that. Your OCD will never let ANY answer be good enough for you, so it actually doesn't matter what we say.

I don't know if you're scared of the possibility of solipsism or not, but if you are you're just going to have to accept it. It's not going away. Believe me, I have OCD and that's the reason why I like philosophy so much now.

On that note. Who ever said you shouldn't believe things that aren't self evident? Is that a practical position? I don't think living in a knowledgeless bubble is practical for anything - especially living and eating. Not going to work buddy.

One gathers evidence through indirect perception - through the senses. There are many ways. The most common way is induction, but hey where else do you start? From there you can take the jamest stance or the materialist stance. Either way you're assuming something about the world that's not certain, but based on rational thought.

Denying any sort of knowledge is completely irrational because there's still a good possibility that knowledge is acheivable, so choosing extreme solipsism is basically just saying - I give up, I'm not even going to try.

Now run along. Talk to someone about this, take your meds, and come back when you're feeling a bit better

GrahamH wrote:

jamest wrote:- Rational solipsism (as I've called it), embraces this evident non-conscious element of one's Self within its narrative. The subsequent conclusion derived from this (about X being everyone), facilitates experiential interaction and communication between different consciousnesses housed within X itself. That is, X can experience itself in a singular 'domain', as being many different people/animals (and anything else that might be conscious)...

Solipsism admits only one consciousness James.

That's naive solipsism - nothing but my/one consciousness.

As I've tried to explain, there's something more 'evident' than one's own consciousness, as a non-conscious element of the self is required to produce the content of consciousness.

Having established this, there is no reason to think that this 'non-conscious element' is constrained to having one conscious experience. However, the compelling evidence is that there are numerous conscious experiences singularly housed within 'X' (the totality of the mind or existence) - otherwise, what am I communicating with?

... X must be having the experience of anyone I communicate with or listen to, for otherwise communication between us would be impossible. I mean, our communication - your distinct opinions and the expression thereof - suffice to prove that something is experiencing itself as being you and having those opinions. Otherwise, how are they formulated and from what are they expressed?

That is, rational solipsism must embrace the notion of there being numerous consciousnesses within one mind/entity.

Regina wrote:Thank goodness that this is completely arbitrary, james. And I don't mean to be flippant.
You and I are not different entities, in your philosophy. Or perhaps I should say Cito and I are not different entities, because it's nothing personal. Your philosophy has no bearing on the world as it is, and it explains nothing. The fact that you try to wriggle out of the problem through the introduction of different experiences doesn't make it more convincing. You and I and Cito are different entities. Unless you can come up with evidence to the contrary.

What is your evidence that we are different entities? Given that you cannot observe anything beyond yourself (the observer's observations/knowledge are all within), you'd do well to take this stuff seriously.

asdfjkl wrote:aand my q was still not answered
why the fuck should i ebleive in things that arent self evident if i only have access to self evident?
shouldnt it be self evident nothing other than the self evident exists?

Your question has been answered and tossed aside. If you don't think that there's evidence of anything beyond your own consciousness, then tell me where your consciousness of the world comes from. Did your consciousness put it there? If so, tell us how you did it. If you cannot, then attend to the responses that you've been given.

You yourself can't get around the concept of different entities, that's the funny thing. That's why you introduce "different experiences" of X. Am I right that these "experiences" are identical with different entities except that you need to introduce X and try to sell us different entities as its/his/her experiences? X is not necessary, pure and simple. We entities don't need his/her/its consciousness in order to exist.

Regina wrote:You yourself can't get around the concept of different entities, that's the funny thing. That's why you introduce "different experiences" of X. Am I right that these "experiences" are identical with different entities except that you need to introduce X and try to sell us different entities as its/his/her experiences? X is not necessary, pure and simple. We entities don't need his/her/its consciousness in order to exist.

I do not simply introduce X to avoid distinct entities. As I've explained, rational solipsism (a form of idealism), demands that there be a non-conscious element to one's existence (to provide the content of consciousness). In my last post to GrahamH, I also provide the reasons why rational solipsism has to embrace the notion of numerous consciousnesses within one identity/mind (where I speak about communicating different opinions).

As far as I'm concerned, the reality I perceive provides me with the content of my consciousness. Why add X?
There are people on this board who blithely define reality=God/X. Unfortunately without being able to come up with reasons why God/X equals reality.

Regina wrote:As far as I'm concerned, the reality I perceive provides me with the content of my consciousness. Why add X?

Because you, Regina, did not create that reality.

There are people on this board who blithely define reality=God/X. Unfortunately without being able to come up with reasons why God/X equals reality.

Each consciousness is free to adopt any perspective as its own. Ask yourself why you choose the blue pill. There is no reason, except that ignorance is sometimes bliss.

jamest wrote:
Because you, Regina, did not create that reality

Very true. But there's no reason to assume it was "created" in the first place.
Creation needs a creator.
To quote Goldenmane from another thread: I'm atheist. I'm without god. (or a creator, or X, or Y, or whatever you prefer to call it).

jamest wrote:
Each consciousness is free to adopt any perspective as its own

What are the limitations of such consciousnesses

Regina wrote:

jamest wrote:
Because you, Regina, did not create that reality

Very true. But there's no reason to assume it was "created" in the first place.

Really?

Ask yourself, what compels you to be aware of a world when that world doesn't care whether you're aware of it.

Ask yourself, what compels you to feel pain in a world that doesn't care whether you get hurt by it.

Ask yourself, what compels you to care when nothing really does and 'care' is a meaningless concept.

Ask yourself, what compels you to feel purpose, desire and will, when nothing else does.

Ask yourself, what compels you to read this shite when you should be out in the world, mating and food-gathering.

Ask yourself, in a world where creation is supposedly a myth, the mind and works of 'man' abound with such creativeness.

To quote Goldenmane from another thread: I'm atheist. I'm without god. (or a creator, or X, or Y, or whatever you prefer to call it).

Anything without God, is devoid of actual selfhood/individuality. Anything devoid of selfhood/individuality, cannot have an opinion/voice. Or, if it has one, it is the mantra of its own creator.

So, go and tell Goldenmane to bring its creator here, so I can talk directly to the author of its opinion.

jamest wrote:

Anything without God, is devoid of actual selfhood/individuality.

Well, in that case you are talking to someone who is devoid of selfhood. But you must have experienced that quite a bit during your stay here, haven't you? So many people without individuality.

Ask yourself, what compels you to read this shite when you should be out in the world, mating and food-gathering.

That's actually a good question. I'm food-gathering of sorts, because I still haven't finished my work for today.
As for the mating, well I'm trying my very best!

surreptitious57 wrote:

jamest wrote:
Each consciousness is free to adopt any perspective as its own

What are the limitations of such consciousnesses

Hardly any. Men have been serfs to all sorts of fantastical perspectives. Imagination, hope, fear, desire, etc., can and do combine to create endless myth.

Some, like GrahamH, would say that our creativity is governed by and within the parameters of the world that they observe. This cannot be true, though, or else we would not have conceived of the immaterial spirit. None of our Gods could have transcended their/our material nature, for instance. And all afterlife would entail a reformation of our decomposed material bodies.

Our primitiveness astounds me, that many still think such things. Religion is still more preposterous than science has become.

Regina wrote:

jamest wrote:

Anything without God, is devoid of actual selfhood/individuality.

Well, in that case you are talking to someone who is devoid of selfhood. But you must have experienced that quite a bit during your stay here, haven't you? So many people without individuality.

Perhaps they want to evade loneliness.

Ask yourself, what compels you to read this shite when you should be out in the world, mating and food-gathering.

That's actually a good question. I'm food-gathering of sorts, because I still haven't finished my work for today.
As for the mating, well I'm trying my very best!

Try harder, lest your genes get left in the laundry.

jamest wrote:
Ask yourself, what compels you to be aware of a world when that world doesn t care whether you re aware of it

Ask yourself, what compels you to feel pain in a world that doesn t care whether you get hurt by it

Ask yourself, what compels you to care when nothing really does and care is a meaningless concept

Ask yourself, what compels you to feel purpose desire and will when nothing else does

Ask yourself, what compels you to read this shite when you should be out in the world mating and food gathering

Ask yourself, in a world where creation is supposedly a myth the mind and works of man abound with such creativeness

One does not require the world to care for us rather a select grouping of
individuals who will provide us with unconditional emotional and spiritual support
when required : though paradoxically all these groupings together constitute the world
The creation and creativeness referenced here not the same as you are [or should be ] aware
Pertaining to the latter this is sub standard argumentation you are presenting here : you can do better
So avoid the classic trap of referencing reality as you want it to be as opposed to how it actually is if you can

jamest wrote:
Some like GrahamH would say that our creativity is governed by and within the parameters of the world that they observe This cannot be true though or else we would not have conceived of the immaterial spirit None of our Gods could have transcended their / our material nature, for instance And all afterlife would entail a reformation of our decomposed material bodies

That depends on your definition of observation : if you are
referencing the five major senses then I would agree but we
are more than physical beings : for our world also incorporates
a mind that is amazing and complex and that can be every bit as
real as the external reality of the world we inhabit so the gods you
refer to are conceptions of such minds : though one must be careful
here not to grant them more legitimacy : such products of imagination
must remain so and never graduate to models of a [ subjective ] reality

surreptitious57 wrote:

jamest wrote:
Some like GrahamH would say that our creativity is governed by and within the parameters of the world that they observe This cannot be true though or else we would not have conceived of the immaterial spirit None of our Gods could have transcended their / our material nature, for instance And all afterlife would entail a reformation of our decomposed material bodies

That depends on your definition of observation : if you are
referencing the five major senses then I would agree but we
are more than physical beings : for our world also incorporates
a mind that is amazing

Loudspeaker announcement: I thought we'd hung, drawn and quartered, all the dualists in these parts?

jamest wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

jamest wrote:
Some like GrahamH would say that our creativity is governed by and within the parameters of the world that they observe This cannot be true though or else we would not have conceived of the immaterial spirit None of our Gods could have transcended their / our material nature, for instance And all afterlife would entail a reformation of our decomposed material bodies

That depends on your definition of observation : if you are
referencing the five major senses then I would agree but we
are more than physical beings : for our world also incorporates
a mind that is amazing

Loudspeaker announcement : I thought we d hung drawn and quartered all the dualists in these parts

You deny the existence of consciousness and thought and imagination
Then how are you able to compose a response to these words that
you are now reading and processing : please explain that to me
Also I do not separate mind from matter : it is obvious that
one is an emergent property of the other : one can still
reference them as being unique to each other but
they are also inter connected as well : we are
after all the totality of all that we comprise
I think therefore I am is a true maxim

Jamest - I wanted to get your opinion on these questions. GrahamH answered one, but I'd still like your perspective.

If each person is a part of the greater consciousness of the solipsist, what do you have to say about the people you speak to in dreams? Are they also conscious?

Also, considering the solipsist experiences the world through all the 'mini' consciousnesses/subjective viewpoints, then what is the explanation of the origins of the universe and the history of the world before conscious beings came into existence?

And one more: what is your take on the 'crimes' the solipsist commits on itself through tsunamis, earthquakes, fires etc?

I'd like your opinions on these topics.

jamest wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

jamest wrote:- Rational solipsism (as I've called it), embraces this evident non-conscious element of one's Self within its narrative. The subsequent conclusion derived from this (about X being everyone), facilitates experiential interaction and communication between different consciousnesses housed within X itself. That is, X can experience itself in a singular 'domain', as being many different people/animals (and anything else that might be conscious)...

Solipsism admits only one consciousness James.

That's naive solipsism - nothing but my/one consciousness.

An interesting comment.
So in your view one mind may have many consciousnesses.
Many would say that the defining aspect of mind is as a conscious entity. Why not one consciousness with many minds? What defines 'a mind' or 'a consciousness', in your view?

You seem to have it as the collection of experiences associated with a particular experienced identity.

This would imply that consciousness is not the capacity to experience. But you place that capacity in X, not identity Jamest.

Can you clarify this for me?

jamest wrote:As I've tried to explain, there's something more 'evident' than one's own consciousness, as a non-conscious is required to produce the content of consciousness.

There is something more evident than one's experiences. I'm not sure we can agree on consciousness being evident at all. That will depend on a definition for consciousness.

A non-conscious something seems to be necessary to produce the content of consciousness (or should that be "to produce consciousness A") but it is a big assumption to call that something an "element of the self". Using "self" for anything non-subjective is dubious in present context.

jamest wrote:Having established this, there is no reason to think that this 'non-conscious element' is constrained to having one conscious experience.

Now, this is a very interesting thing for you to say. how does "this non-conscious element" "have conscious experience"?

You might have said this non-conscious element is not constrained to making content for one conscious experience. Is that closer to what you meant?

jamest wrote: However, the compelling evidence is that there are numerous conscious experiences singularly housed within 'X' (the totality of the mind or existence) - otherwise, what am I communicating with?

You are talking to yourself James. X-as-James is communicating with X-as-Graham. Tom is discussing philosophy with Jerry. Does the animator have to think he is Jerry having experiences to put words into Jerry's mouth?

jamest wrote:... X must be having the experience of anyone I communicate with or listen to, for otherwise communication between us would be impossible.

I think you are wrong on that. I can have a conversation with myself, arguing from differing positions, but having only one stream of experience and one identity. If I could generate the other side of the dialogue unknowingly I would seem to be talking to another mind, but there would not need to be another experiencing person involved.

jamest wrote: I mean, our communication - your distinct opinions and the expression thereof - suffice to prove that something is experiencing itself as being you and having those opinions. Otherwise, how are they formulated and from what are they expressed?

We might agree that these words are formed as a result of cognition, memory etc. We would also agree that you have no experience of writing these words. But you can only assume that the cognitive processes, memory etc. involved are being experienced. How can you tell that it isn't you, playing devil's advocate, that is creating these words but forgetting that you are doing so? Isn;t that, in fact, what you believe - that the same mind generates all sides of this conversation?

jamest wrote:That is, rational solipsism must embrace the notion of there being numerous consciousnesses within one mind/entity.

f you have more than one consciousness you aren't a solipsist. You want to have another creative spirit to talk to, but you can't have that as a solipsist.