Yes. You're the only person who's ever thought of this before. There are no books at all on the subject, in fact going to a library and asking about it would be complete waste of time. You should just write the book yourself.

but really were there other ppl w/ exact same thoughts?

asdfjkl wrote:but really were there other ppl w/ exact same thoughts?

Just read through the following wiki link. Such thoughts have been prevalent throughout history. Still are, to a significant extent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

LucidFlight wrote:Maybe one thinks one is thinking about non-self-evident things when in actual fact they are thinking about an abstract representation of the non-self-evident thing — which in itself may be non-self-evident other than the fact that you're thinking about them and, as such, they are self-evident at the time, but only as an abstract and self-evident representation of the non-self-evident thing you thought you were thinking about, in which case, it's not entirely self-evident that one is thinking self-evidentially about something possibly completely removed, evidentially-speaking, from the non-self-evident thing in itself about which one initially though they were evidently thinking about.

Wow, Lucid, that is so deep!

ok one thing which rly sometimes freaks me out and makes me solipsistic is how you can't deny the self evident.
so sometimes it seems like the proposition "something other than the self-evident exists" is just as ludicrous as "something that is self-evident doesn't exist" such as denial of existence of self.
anyone get this ever?

asdfjkl wrote:ok one thing which rly sometimes freaks me out and makes me solipsistic is how you can't deny the self evident.
so sometimes it seems like the proposition "something other than the self-evident exists" is just as ludicrous as "something that is self-evident doesn't exist" such as denial of existence of self.
anyone get this ever?

What's 'self evident' is open to debate, since the observation of something doesn't equate to the reality of that thing itself. That is self-evident... to reason.

You keep going on about self-evidence as though observation were the key to existential knowledge. It's not, so where does that leave your 'self evidence'?

jamest wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:ok one thing which rly sometimes freaks me out and makes me solipsistic is how you can't deny the self evident.
so sometimes it seems like the proposition "something other than the self-evident exists" is just as ludicrous as "something that is self-evident doesn't exist" such as denial of existence of self.
anyone get this ever?

What's 'self evident' is open to debate, since the observation of something doesn't equate to the reality of that thing itself. That is self-evident... to reason.

You keep going on about self-evidence as though observation were the key to existential knowledge. It's not, so where does that leave your 'self evidence'?

but with solipsism reality of the thing=observation of the thing
so no extra non self evident elements/things
wouldnt that be simplest?

asdfjkl wrote:

jamest wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:ok one thing which rly sometimes freaks me out and makes me solipsistic is how you can't deny the self evident.
so sometimes it seems like the proposition "something other than the self-evident exists" is just as ludicrous as "something that is self-evident doesn't exist" such as denial of existence of self.
anyone get this ever?

What's 'self evident' is open to debate, since the observation of something doesn't equate to the reality of that thing itself. That is self-evident... to reason.

You keep going on about self-evidence as though observation were the key to existential knowledge. It's not, so where does that leave your 'self evidence'?

but with solipsism reality of the thing=observation of the thing
so no extra non self evident elements/things
wouldnt that be simplest?

If you look through the side of a glass of water, at a pencil half submerged in the glass of water, held at an angle into the surface of the water, what you observe is not a straight pencil.
If reality of the thing = observation of the thing, then the reality is that the pencil is bent.
Do you believe the pencil IS bent, or that it is observed as-if bend due to the bending of light rays at the surface of the water?

If you believe 'its really bent', how does it 'get straight again' when removed from the water?

I suggest the pencil is not bent, it is only observed as-if bend due to the demonstrabe established principle of refraction.
I suggest this shows that even for a solipsist, observation of a thing does not equal the reality of a thing.

Your error is to ascribe reality to the observer but not to the observed.
Ascribing reality to the observed does not mean its reality has to be a mind-independent reality.
If there is an observer experiencing a perception, then 'the actual self-evident thing' is not the individual perciever, nor the thing percieved, rather the interaction called 'perception'.

So asdfjkl, perhaps you could tell us the difference between 'self-evident' vs. 'not self-evident'. Perhaps if you can't define these, there is only 'evident' or 'not evident'.

but it would be also possible that the pencil is bent in the water and not bent out of it.
still it seems possible to limit everything just to self-evident.
would the def. of existence be self evidence then?

asdfjkl wrote:but it would be also possible that the pencil is bent in the water and not bent out of it.
still it seems possible to limit everything just to self-evident.
would the def. of existence be self evidence then?

It seems possible - in that we cant prove with certainty that its not possible - that the world is a product of pink unicorns.
But 'it seems possible' is about as much use for scientific or philosophical investination as custard is useful for building nuclear reactors.

Answer the question - do you think the reality of the pen matches the observation?
If you do, we can discuss the breaking of many well understood rules, like conservation of energy and so on.
Basically, if you believe the pencil is actually bent, then you are unfit to conduct a reasonable discussion based upon evidence and explanation of observation.

If you acept the pencil is not bent, then you have to accept the reality of the pencil is different to the observation of the pencil.
Agree with this line above, or refute it.

i know that it is more "reasonable" to believe in external world.
but on the other hand it seems that when you say "x exists" such as "the keyboard exists" you base it on how you can use the keyboard to type, etc, which is all direct perception
if you can't directly perceive/readily say something exists would that mean it doesnt?
because you dont have access to it anyway?

asdfjkl wrote:i know that it is more "reasonable" to believe in external world.
but on the other hand it seems that when you say "x exists" such as "the keyboard exists" you base it on how you can use the keyboard to type, etc, which is all direct perception
if you can't directly perceive/readily say something exists would that mean it doesnt?
because you dont have access to it anyway?

I agree that all we actually ever know is content of mind.
I am an idealist, actually a mentalist. 'Its all mental'

But I am just showing you that the content of our experience is only an appearance - I ask 'is the pen bent really bent?' to show you that our observation of the pen being bent is different to the physical fact that the pen is straight - which is different again to the reality of the pen. We can only judge the appearance of the pen, or its physical reality inferred from our observations supported by our theories and experiences or 'knowledge' - but to talk of the reality of the pen (in any sense other than its physical reality) is not to talk about our observation, and thus 'in solipsism observation = reality' is based on an error.
Simply; Reality is not equal to observation.

what i mean that if observation is the only reality.
would that be true?

bump
is my arguement supreme?

asdfjkl wrote:bump
is my arguement supreme?

Yes, and so is your spelling.

asdfjkl wrote:what i mean that if observation is the only reality.
would that be true?

No, observING is the only reality. That is, the observER is the only reality which reason can attest to. Although, initially at least, the nature/identity of this observer is in doubt.

but really aren't you worried about solipsism and shit???

asdfjkl wrote:what i mean that if observation is the only reality.
would that be true?

and

is my arguement supreme?

No, the argument is not supreme. Its not even correct.
Observation is not the only reality.
Observation is 'the only self evident' fact - fair enough.
As I would say; 'there is experience of something'.
Lets say 'there is observation of something'
But that does not mean the thing observed is reality, nor that the observer is reality.

What it means is that the only known reality is that there is observation - this is why 'observation' is the known reality, not observer or observed.

The thing which is observed may be total illusion, or a reflection of reality in some way, or could even be reality - but the fact that there is observation of something does not form a basis upon which the reality of the something can be directly and automatically established as self evident.
Please note the distinction between the reality of the 'something observed' and the self-evident fact that there is observation.

'The reality of the process of observation, and the reality of the thing observed, and the reality of the observer, are distinct', thats what I am trying to show you.

asdfjkl wrote:but really aren't you worried about solipsism and shit???

What is there to worry about?