Summarize it yourself. We aren't here to do your homework for you. Plus ordering people around isn't likely to get you any helpful replies.

ok can someone please summarize it for me?

The consensus seems to be that your questions are incoherent. Because of that, responses to them cannot be summarised other than to reiterate the consensus.

Usually, a statement represented as 'self-evident' suggests that no further comment is expected. If someone disagrees that a statement offered as 'self-evident' actually is self-evident, there is no recourse. If such a statement is elaborated, then it was not self-evident to begin with.

asdfjkl wrote:no i need it summarized.

My summary is accurate. Read it.

also it isn't nonsense it means self-evident things are the only things that exist (since our notion of existence comes from perception of self evident things and you can not doubt the existence of self evident things.)

It IS nonsense. What you call "self-evident" makes absolutely no sense. Figure out what you're talking about, and find a way to explain it in a way that actually makes sense outside your own head. As Cito said, at this point your questions are completely incoherent.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:no i need it summarized.

My summary is accurate. Read it.

also it isn't nonsense it means self-evident things are the only things that exist (since our notion of existence comes from perception of self evident things and you can not doubt the existence of self evident things.)

It IS nonsense. What you call "self-evident" makes absolutely no sense. Figure out what you're talking about, and find a way to explain it in a way that actually makes sense outside your own head. As Cito said, at this point your questions are completely incoherent.

i can haz lojikul? otsied mioan hedd?

Cito di Pense wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:no i need it summarized.

My summary is accurate. Read it.

also it isn't nonsense it means self-evident things are the only things that exist (since our notion of existence comes from perception of self evident things and you can not doubt the existence of self evident things.)

It IS nonsense. What you call "self-evident" makes absolutely no sense. Figure out what you're talking about, and find a way to explain it in a way that actually makes sense outside your own head. As Cito said, at this point your questions are completely incoherent.

i can haz lojikul? otsied mioan hedd?

I always hate it when I have this really stellar idea in my head, but the damn thing just never takes to being written down. Back to the drawing board again!

ok my idea that since it's self evident that self evident things exist it is also self evident that non-self evident things don't exist.

asdfjkl wrote:ok my idea that since it's self evident that self evident things exist it is also self evident that non-self evident things don't exist.

That's not an idea, that's a word salad. Nobody has a fucking clue what you're talking about when you say "self evident", give a definition and give some examples. You can't use a word to describe itself, that tells us nothing. What makes something self-evident? Be specific.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:ok my idea that since it's self evident that self evident things exist it is also self evident that non-self evident things don't exist.

That's not an idea, that's a word salad. Nobody has a fucking clue what you're talking about when you say "self evident", give a definition and give some examples. You can't use a word to describe itself, that tells us nothing. What makes something self-evident? Be specific.

It's not so much a word salad as a brute tautology between 'self-evident' and 'existential'. We still don't know what asdf intends by either term. This is the run up to the similar problem between 'real' and 'existential' or 'self-evident' and 'real'.

asdfjkl wrote:ok my idea that since it's self evident that self evident things exist it is also self evident that non-self evident things don't exist.

Thats simply a logical error.

If every A is B, then every not-A is not B may seem fair enough on first glance.
in asdfjkl's case A= self evident thing, B= exist.

But that cant work with exist, because exist is not a category of things which excludes other things - or in other words, all things exist, because things in this context means 'things which exist'.

Every cat is feline, dogs are not cats, therefore no dogs are feline. - Thats fine. And its fine because feline is defined as being 'only cats'.
Every cat exists, dogs are not cats, therefore no dogs exist. - Thats clearly rubbish. And its rubbish because exists is not defined as being 'only cats'.

but what i mean is like this: it's obvious that you're observing a computer screen for example, and not a cat.
it feels like it's just as obvious that nothing other that what you are observing exists because you are not observing
sure it makes logical sense that things other than that exists.
but logic is a brain thing while observations are more direct.
also logic has been proven to not always work (paradoxes n shit)

asdfjkl wrote:but what i mean is like this: it's obvious that you're observing a computer screen for example, and not a cat.
it feels like it's just as obvious that nothing other that what you are observing exists because you are not observing
sure it makes logical sense that things other than that exists.
but logic is a brain thing while observations are more direct.
also logic has been proven to not always work (paradoxes n shit)

You overlook the fact that observation has also been proven not to work reliably all the time.
I spoke of a pencil pushed into water, observed to bend while not doing so at all. Another example is looking in a mirror; I see an image of the room as-if it is behind the mirror - yet I know there is no actual bathroom there, whats more, this virtual bathroom is observed as containing myself, and I know darn well I am not over there.

Summary so far; Simply put, observing the virtual bathroom does not mean it exists.

Very simple laws of physics show how the bending of light accounts quite convinvingly for both the bent pencil and virtual bathroom.
Unless you can come up with a good reason, or at least a viable possibility, why these simple everyday facts are not demonstrations of a difference between 'how the physical world is' and 'our observation of how the physical world is', then I have shown evidence that we observe only the appearance, not the reality of our physical environmnent.

Therefore observation of a thing (such as a reflection) does not prove the thing physically exists.
The bathroom exists (assuming its a physical object, not another image) but the observed reflection does not.

Observation of a thing does prove only that it exists as an observed thing, not as a physical thing.

Summary so far; An observed thing may or may not also be a physical thing.

Apply this to the computer screen and cat in your post.
I observe a computer screen, not a cat, correct.
But this observation alone does not establish that the computer screen exists as a physical object - it does establish it exists as an observed object which may or may not be also a physical object.
The cat is not observed, so it has not been proven to be an observed object, nor a physical object. While it is true that it is not an object observed by me (a given in the example set up) this does not prove it is not observed by another - its trivially true that it could be observed by someone else - so it may or may not exist as an observed object (observed by someone else). If it is/could be observed by someonr else, then it could be a physical object as well as an observed object. Therfore, the fact that I do not observe it does not lead to the conclusion that it is not a physical object.

Summary so far; there is no evidence that physical objects require observation by me to physically exist, and considerable evidence that physical existence of a thing is distinct from existence as a thing observed by me, as it could be observed by another, even if we posit that it must be observed in order to be physical, it does not prevent observation by another observer.

Since,
1. you have not shown why a physical object can only exist when observed.
2. you have conceeded logic suggests the cat does exist when not observed.
3. School boy physics suggests, when using a mirror to observe a reflection of an object not in view (such as looking round a wall using a mirror) we observe only the (non-physical) reflection, not the (physical) object - but there should be no reflection if the physical object were not present.
4. Simple demonstrations can be arranged to show things exist when your not observing them, but others are. Such as; close you eyes, roll a dice in front of a friend, cover the dice and bet $10 with your friend - who ever predicts the number gets the cash - if the dice didnt exist when you were not looking, its 50-50 bet, right? Would you play against your friend? How about if he bet $20 against your $10, on 50-50 chance you'd be the certain winner after a few bets, right? The FACT that you'd lose (on any odds less than 6-1 in your favour) demonstrates that the dice existed when he observed it but you did not.

Summary; there is no evidence that physical objects require observation by me to physically exist, and considerable evidence that physical existence of a thing is distinct from existence as a thing observed by me.

Extension - this is not to say there is evidence of a physical world independent of all observation, thats a different point altogether. This is to say there is strong evidence of a physical world independent of my observation of it.

Note, I am an idealist. I 'believe' in observation, see my sig.

what i was trying to say is that there is no physical object, only observed.
so observation=the only reailty.

do i and solipsism win???

No.
Btw, whom are you asking? You can't observe anyone here, so we don't exist.

yes... and handily, I might add.

asdfjkl wrote:do i and solipsism win???

What you gonna do about it, if you have? Freak out?

Don't let these guys confuse you, They don't exist. Honest!

Regina wrote:Don't let these guys confuse you, They don't exist. Honest!

The most staggering aspect of rational solipsism, is that it doesn't negate the existence of any [other] individual consciousness. This is because 'consciousness' (awareness) is not indicative of the totality of being. It cannot be, otherwise I would be conscious of how I am producing experience for myself.

Hence, rational solipsism must necessarily integrate separate individual consciousnesses within its argument (within 'self'), by logical default. Therein lies its beauty, because no longer does the rational solipsist have to endure the naive mockery of other consciousnesses [such as your own, as exhibited above] as a proof that their reasoning is wrong!

Get your prayer mats out. And your wallets - the collection box draws nigh.

And what makes you think he's a rational solipsist?