Cito di Pense wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:Just means that it stops existing I suppose (with solipsism)

How does something just 'stop existing'?

If you just stop insisting that it exists, and nobody else seems to give much of a fuck.

I'm not the one melting down over 'existence' you know.

asdfjkl wrote:But my main question is: If it is self-evident hat self evident things exist is it self-evident that non self evident things DON'T exist?
Because you don't have access to non-self evident things.
For example when you can see a computer but not a goose.
Does it mean that there is a computer but there is no goose anywhere.

It is NOT self-evident that observed things simply "exist". Have you never observed anything come into existence or cease to exist? Have you never seen a soap bubble form then pop?

What your observation tells you is NOT "things exist", but "things exist, then stop to exist, things come into existence, things appear to be one thing and on closer inspection are another, things morph from one form to another, things fall apart, things develope and form, things change...".

The question "do things exist when I do not observe them?" is silly. It is not a question that follows from observation or anything "self-evident". Things cease to exist when you do observe them, things come into existence when you observe them.

What is "self-evident" is movement and change. The universe is not a bunch of inert nouns.

What is logically "self-evident" is that the existence of things is NOT bound to your observation.

"Mommy, I don't want my soap bubbles to pop!"
"Don't worry honey, we'll just get that nice solipsist man to look at them, they'll never pop as long as he is looking at them!"

Self-evident?
(not) the Thing in itself?
(direct) Access?
Does the goose compel your observation that it is not a computer?
Simply doesn't exist any more?

Ratskep philosophy is such a joy.

GrahamH wrote:Self-evident?
(not) the Thing in itself?
(direct) Access?
Does the goose compel your observation that it is not a computer?
Simply doesn't exist any more?

Ratskep philosophy is such a joy.

Indeed it is.
How about trying it the other way round?

asdfjkl wrote:But my main question is: If it is self-evident hat self evident things exist is it self-evident that non self evident things DON'T exist?
Because you don't have access to non-self evident things.
For example when you can see a computer but not a goose.
Does it mean that there is a computer but there is no goose anywhere.

Our young friend seems to worry that as long that as there's no goose he can observe, the goose as such does not exist. Or just one particular goose of his acquaintance? We don't know.
Anyway, let's assume, he observes a goose. The goose walks out, he can't observe her, the goose ceases to exist.
Now, shouldn't it be possible to force the goose back into existence? I mean, if my not observing it let's it pop out of existence,
it should be possible to force it back into existence through my (observational) willpower alone. Yes? No?
If not, does the goose, perhaps, perhaps, exist independently of my activities, observational or not?

Well, if the goose objectively exists, it'll exist whether you're observing it or not. If it only exists subjectively, the information that defines the goose will need to exist somewhere when you're not directly observing it - that would, in a subjective universe, be existence.

Solipsism - it's just a glitch in the Matrix.

Unless reality is a chaotic dream that merely appears to make sense in the moment.
If a goose is evident then it can be made to 'seem real' by constructing a spontaneous memory of 'seeing the same goose a moment ago', and creating a conceptual context to define goose.
Perhaps there is only now and time and memory are merely subjective constructs to generate the appearance of order in chaos.
The goose is then a glitch in a Matrix of glitches. Nothing is 'self-evident' and the difference between a goose and a computer is merely what you make it.

I'm aiming at something different:
If the goose only exists through mental activity, and ceases to exist through not executing a particular mental activity, it should be possible to conjure up said goose. And in physical form, not as a figment of my imagination.
So I feel like a cuppa. hey presto, there it lands on my table. If I feel like roasted goose, yumm, there it is. And not plastic bits with feathers stuck on.

Regina wrote:I'm aiming at something different:
If the goose only exists through mental activity, and ceases to exist through not executing a particular mental activity, it should be possible to conjure up said goose. And in physical form, not as a figment of my imagination.
So I feel like a cuppa. hey presto, there it lands on my table. If I feel like roasted goose, yumm, there it is. And not plastic bits with feathers stuck on.

You just refuted solipsism and idealism but your methods are considered cheating so this will not be acknowledged. You used a little sense and intelligence. Amongst the woo-osophers this amounts to a violation of the UA. Tread carefully! They will call you a materialist or even worse, an ELIMINATIVE materialist!

Regina wrote:I'm aiming at something different:
If the goose only exists through mental activity, and ceases to exist through not executing a particular mental activity, it should be possible to conjure up said goose. And in physical form, not as a figment of my imagination.
So I feel like a cuppa. hey presto, there it lands on my table. If I feel like roasted goose, yumm, there it is. And not plastic bits with feathers stuck on.

Ah you (X) could do that, but you (X) don't want to be omnipotent in being you (X-experiencing being Regina), so X reserve all pure mental creation stuff for X being X, and puts limits on what X does within experience. X can can create a cuppa by willing it, but part of willing it is also experiencing getting up and making it.

The thing is, experienced minds (Regina's mind) are nothing like X-Mind. X-Mind can do things we know from experience that minds don't do. James and LI know this because... um...the idea occurs to them. And...um...since the mind doing the work is X-Mind then experiencing a thought about X is sorta...you know... direct from god's...backside. So: IF X THEN X.

X must give us free will and adversity or the game would be no fun at all.

I have been a materialist since I started thinking about the world around me in earnest. It coincided with realizing that I'm also an atheist.
Although, if we could produce stuff through mental activity alone, it would solve most of the world's problems before breakfast.

SpeedOfSound wrote:X must give us itself free will and adversity or the game would be no fun at all.

FIFY

GrahamH wrote:

Regina wrote:I'm aiming at something different:
If the goose only exists through mental activity, and ceases to exist through not executing a particular mental activity, it should be possible to conjure up said goose. And in physical form, not as a figment of my imagination.
So I feel like a cuppa. hey presto, there it lands on my table. If I feel like roasted goose, yumm, there it is. And not plastic bits with feathers stuck on.

Ah you (X) could do that, but you (X) don't want to be omnipotent in being you (X-experiencing being Regina), so X reserve all pure mental creation stuff for X being X, and puts limits on what X does within experience. X can can create a cuppa by willing it, but part of willing it is also experiencing getting up and making it.

The thing is, experienced minds (Regina's mind) are nothing like X-Mind. X-Mind can do things we know from experience that minds don't do. James and LI know this because... um...the idea occurs to them. And...um...since the mind doing the work is X-Mind then experiencing a thought about X is sorta...you know... direct from god's...backside. So: IF X THEN X.

Being a solipsist does not require working X into any of this.

Regina wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Regina wrote:I'm aiming at something different:
If the goose only exists through mental activity, and ceases to exist through not executing a particular mental activity, it should be possible to conjure up said goose. And in physical form, not as a figment of my imagination.
So I feel like a cuppa. hey presto, there it lands on my table. If I feel like roasted goose, yumm, there it is. And not plastic bits with feathers stuck on.

Ah you (X) could do that, but you (X) don't want to be omnipotent in being you (X-experiencing being Regina), so X reserve all pure mental creation stuff for X being X, and puts limits on what X does within experience. X can can create a cuppa by willing it, but part of willing it is also experiencing getting up and making it.

The thing is, experienced minds (Regina's mind) are nothing like X-Mind. X-Mind can do things we know from experience that minds don't do. James and LI know this because... um...the idea occurs to them. And...um...since the mind doing the work is X-Mind then experiencing a thought about X is sorta...you know... direct from god's...backside. So: IF X THEN X.

Being a solipsist does not require working X into any of this.

According to solipsism

'I made this' (everything)

That doesn't work out too well when 'I' have no idea how to 'make this' and no have knowledge of 'making this' and 'I can't even make a cup of tea by thinking it'.

It seems there must be something other than subjectivity providing subjective content. My money's on the content of experience reflecting something of the source of experience, namely a material world, physical brains etc. So X= the physical world.

Some prefer to ignore the content and make assumptions about 'the nature of consciousness' as something alien to the content, because it is hard to comprehend the connections from appearances.

I don;t see how one can tell for sure, but viewing the world as a pure creative fiction (no such thing know to us) is profoundly unsatisfying and utterly useless.

Amen to that!

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:Just means that it stops existing I suppose (with solipsism)

How does something just 'stop existing'?

If you just stop insisting that it exists, and nobody else seems to give much of a fuck.

I'm not the one melting down over 'existence' you know.

Yes, but you don't actually make fun of 'existence'. If you wanted to try, perhaps you could identify 'existence' with 'fun'.

Cito di Pense wrote:Yes, but you don't actually make fun of 'existence'. If you wanted to try, perhaps you could identify 'existence' with 'fun'.

Then we could ask what caused the fun to begin.

I know, I know!
(But I won't tell)

GrahamH wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:Yes, but you don't actually make fun of 'existence'. If you wanted to try, perhaps you could identify 'existence' with 'fun'.

Then we could ask what caused the fun to begin.

I'm surprised at you, Graham. You obviously have not thought carefully enough about 'fun'. 'Fun' just pops into (and out of) existence, like existence itself. As a favourite character in a film taught me, "You have to make your own fun, otherwise it's just entertainment." Think about the Tom & Jerry cartoon a little. Authors such as 'X' are there for entities who don't know how to make their own fun. You have to try to see the fun in not being able to conjure up a cup of tea by means of pure reason. I tend to see this restriction as making existence more interesting ('fun') than it would be in an idealistic universe. Idealists tend to try to make their fun by instead conjuring up a series of excuses as to why they cannot conjure up that cup of tea. "Oh, it's simple. X just doesn't want me to have that cup right now. Delayed gratification, and all that." SoS spends considerable effort in pondering why that tree over there is so hard to get rid of just at the moment. Patience, Lad, patience. Know when to hold 'em, and when to fold 'em.

I feel like the fun has ceased to be.
It would be fun to bend a spoon.