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

He definitely isn't. I am. I'm just shedding some light upon the pig's ear he's made of this issue.

It's irrational to think that solipsism equates to an existential totality and identity which is solely conscious/aware [of the world]. Consciousness/awareness of the world is clearly just one aspect of being.

but it is the only self evident aspect.
meaning no other things clearly exist.

You are right. You only exist in my consciousness. Happy now? And when I fall asleep, or forget about you, you cease to exist.
Unless you find other people who take over when that happens.

asdfjkl wrote:but it is the only self evident aspect.
meaning no other things clearly exist.

No, conscious existence is not the only evident aspect, because there's content within consciousness and 'it' didn't put it there.

Evidently, this content emerges from beyond your conscious being, meaning that there's evidence for some aspect of your being which is not consciousness [as you know it].

where did u get the idea that content needs to emerge?
it could just be there imo

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

And I demonstrated for you the difference between a physical object and an observed object.
A reflection of your hand in a mirror is an observed object, your hand is a physical object.
You are arguing that
observation is reality - if you observe it, it self evidently exists, if you don't observe it, then it doesn't exist

This leads to two differences between what would happen if you were correct and what actually is experienced to happen.
1. With your eyes shut, you should not be able to pick up an object (say a cup on the table) with your physical hand - because ýou say both the hand and the cup don't exist when not observed by you
2. And you should be able to pick up the same cup with the reflection of your hand if you open your eyes - because you say the observed reflection exists.

So, unless you actually show that your position does not lead to these two differences between experience and what your position says should happen, then your position is demonstrated to be wrong.

jamest wrote:

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.

How much is a membership, and do I get a badge?

More seriously, would you be so kind as to explain to me what the term 'solipsist' means to you? What exactly do you mean when you say you are a rational solipsist?

To me, and please point out differences between what I say and what you mean, solipsism means the position that; 'only my own mind and its contents exist'

This means other individuals exist only as contents of my own awareness - they are like the figures in my dream, based entirely upon my mind for their reality, having no reality outside my (dream or) mind.

I grant that I cant 'prove for sure' that other individuals do exist, but I think its much more reasonable to assume they do exist as distinct individuals than to assume they don't.

Obviously, one does not need to consciously be aware of creating ones own experience, if ones subconscious mind creates the content of the experience, and ones conscious mind is aware of the product not the process of production.
Example, ones mind creates ones dream environment, but even in lucid dreaming I am aware of the produced content, not the process of my mind producing it. I am aware that I am dreaming, aware that the dream environment is a production of my mind experienced inside my mind, aware that I can pan my vision round a (3D +time) environment which looks physical and external to the dream body while actually being completely mental in nature. But importantly (and this is my point) although I am aware that my mind is producing it I am not aware of my mind doing so.
Does this not demonstrate that the non-conscious component of mind produces the dream, and the conscious component of the individual mind is aware of that product/content but not the actual production of it?

Little Idiot wrote:

jamest wrote:

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.

How much is a membership, and do I get a badge?

More seriously, would you be so kind as to explain to me what the term 'solipsist' means to you? What exactly do you mean when you say you are a rational solipsist?

To me, and please point out differences between what I say and what you mean, solipsism means the position that; 'only my own mind and its contents exist'

This means other individuals exist only as contents of my own awareness - they are like the figures in my dream, based entirely upon my mind for their reality, having no reality outside my (dream or) mind.

I think James means that the content of your own awareness cannot be a product of your own awareness, since you are unaware of its creation, so there is something beyond your own awareness. Idealists and solipsists might want to call that something 'my mind' or 'god's mind' or 'big mind' or 'world mind', but since they have no experience of it they are are in the dark on what it is.

Given that it seems unavoidable that 'mind' is divisible into at least these two parts - conscious awareness and unconscious something then it is not unreasonable to allow that perhaps there can be more than one locus of conscious awareness within one 'mind' - C1 + C2 + C3 + ... Cn + UM = One Mind.

In James' view the unconscious bit (the bit that 'orchestrates experience') contains multiple subjective views - multiple subject-object stories, but these subject-object stories are not 'minds' by his definition, since they are not the overarching solipsistic creative / knowing entity.

In your terms - Cn are the 'waves made by the ocean' but each waves is not a thinker / knower / creator, it is only a subject-object relation known and made by the 'ocean' WM.

I'm sure James will straighten out the kinks in that, but I think it is a reasonably fair interpretation.

Little Idiot wrote:I grant that I cant 'prove for sure' that other individuals do exist, but I think its much more reasonable to assume they do exist as distinct individuals than to assume they don't.

The difference is in what you call an 'individual mind' and whether it contains the active parts of mentality. o James individual minds are nothing more than experiences (subject-object relations) known and made in the one mind. The one mind does all the thinking for all these 'individuals', so individuals are not separate minds, they are experienced identities. The same one mind thinks the thoughts experienced as LI, and those experienced as GrahamH, and Jamest.

Little Idiot wrote:Obviously, one does not need to consciously be aware of creating ones own experience, if ones subconscious mind creates the content of the experience, and ones conscious mind is aware of the product not the process of production.

There you are in two minds. If conscious mind experiences thoughts created beyond awareness from sub-conscious knowledge then these non-conscious parts of your mind, that make thoughts, might make the thoughts that you are a subject experiencing objects. If it can do so for one identity (another thought) then why not any number of 'individual consciousnesses'?

Little Idiot wrote:Example, ones mind creates ones dream environment, but even in lucid dreaming I am aware of the produced content, not the process of my mind producing it. I am aware that I am dreaming, aware that the dream environment is a production of my mind experienced inside my mind, aware that I can pan my vision round a (3D +time) environment which looks physical and external to the dream body while actually being completely mental in nature. But importantly (and this is my point) although I am aware that my mind is producing it I am not aware of my mind doing so.

So your claim that 'my mind made this' is somewhat speculative. You don't actually know it was 'LI's mind'. Maybe it was WM, thinking up LI dreaming.

Little Idiot wrote:Does this not demonstrate that the non-conscious component of mind produces the dream, and the conscious component of the individual mind is aware of that product/content but not the actual production of it?

It demonstrates that you, consciousness LI, don't know the 'non-conscious component of mind'. I would go further as say you can't claim to know that the 'non-conscious component of mind' is 'mind' at all.

Little Idiot wrote:

jamest wrote:
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!

... would you be so kind as to explain to me what the term 'solipsist' means to you? What exactly do you mean when you say you are a rational solipsist?

To me, and please point out differences between what I say and what you mean, solipsism means the position that; 'only my own mind and its contents exist'

This means other individuals exist only as contents of my own awareness - they are like the figures in my dream, based entirely upon my mind for their reality, having no reality outside my (dream or) mind.

Graham was more-or-less correct in his first paragraph: we're not conscious of why the 'stuff' which constitutes experience is within consciousness, so its presence must be a product of something beyond that consciousness. The phenomenon (sensations/quale, or whatever you think it is) which constitutes your consciousness/awareness of 'the world', for example - did you consciously construct that for yourself? Of course not, therefore its very presence within your consciousness must be the work of something else.

Obviously, one does not need to consciously be aware of creating ones own experience, if ones subconscious mind creates the content of the experience, and ones conscious mind is aware of the product not the process of production.

We basically agree, as evident here. However, if there's a subconscious element to 'mind', then there's more to existence than 'my own consciousness', isn't there? That's all I've basically said.

Something does not need to be observed to exist : as by that logic nothing existed before human perception
We know however that that is blatantly false : furthermore there is no required validation of existence
beyond whatever it is that is existing actually existing : as to how one can then know something
exists without perceiving it the simple answer to that is that one does not : whatever it is
will still exist whether one is aware of it or not : it is the very nature of existence that
is the sole determining factor here not whether or not one can perceive of such an
existence : that question although important is not the most important one
pertaining to existence : to illustrate this let me turn it upside down :
you know that you exist but someone or something that does not
know this cannot comprehend your existence : so logically you
both exist and do not exist : this is obviously nonsensical
so therefore validation is not what is necessary here
but existence itself : we need it however as a
reference point for our day to day existence
but in purely philosophical terms though
it is not necessary at all : not at all

Little Idiot wrote:
Does this not demonstrate that the non-conscious component of mind produces the dream, and the conscious component of the individual mind is aware of that product/content but not the actual production of it?

There is a problem, as Graham points out, of reading the conscious/non-conscious status of the mind as two minds, or two individuals: 'myself and God'.

... It has to be made clear that The Mind or The Self is but one ~thing~ ('X'). Thus, for the rational solipsist, X is simultaneously the non-conscious and conscious elements which constitute experience (i.e., both the author and reader of experience, so to speak).

This means that we should strive to identify The Self with this whole unity - and avoid [habitually] thinking of ourselves as nought but the conscious element of existence - as so many of us do, inc luding naive solipsists.

My experience of discussions like these shows me that nearly everyone has a naive understanding of solipsism. They think, as asdfjkl thinks, that there is no evidence of any existence other than their own consciousness. Clearly though, as pointed-out, there is evidence of a non-conscious producer of 'experience'. Further, and most significantly, they erroneously think that The Self is defined and constrained within the parameters of their consciousness. Hence, the epiphenomenal folly of different individuals with their own conscious minds, cannot be avoided. You and I, for example, are considered to be two individuals. This then results in the usual silly bickering one witnesses in comments like these:

"Yes. You exist 100% inside my own brain. So I command you to download spellcheck."

"Btw, whom are you asking?"

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

... All a product of naive solipsism.


Many/most people think that 'God' (or whatever you want to call it) is that which exists beyond the conscious self, such that God is deemed to be separate from the self. However, for the rational solipsist, God is at once itself, everything, and being everyone. There are no different individuals - there is just one individual experiencing itself in numerous ways.

jamest wrote:... It has to be made clear asserted that The Mind or The Self is but one ~thing~ ('X').

FIFY

jamest wrote: Thus, for the rational solipsist, X is simultaneously the non-conscious and conscious elements which constitute experience (i.e., both the author and reader of experience, so to speak).

The author experiences the writing, or can not justify claiming authorship.

jamest wrote:This means that we should strive to identify The Self with this whole unity - and avoid [habitually] thinking of ourselves as nought but the conscious element of existence - as so many of us do, including naive solipsists.

I agree with you there, I am more than my experiences.

jamest wrote:
Many / most people think that God ( or whatever you want to call it ) is that which exists beyond the conscious self such that God is deemed to be separate from the self. However for the rational solipsist God is at once itself everything and being everyone. There are no different individuals - there is just one individual experiencing itself in numerous ways

Disregarding the metaphysical element it is true that we are all one
experiencing in different ways : since all humans evolved from a
single self replicating cell dividing bacteria then we naturally
can be referenced as one or at least sharing an ancestry
that acknowledges this : admittedly this is not of the
philosophical interpretation this thread may how
ever require or demand : even so is still true

GrahamH wrote:

jamest wrote:... It has to be made clear asserted that The Mind or The Self is but one ~thing~ ('X').

FIFY

Graham, there's no proof presented here that solipsism is the correct philosophy. What I'm attempting to spell-out is that, for a rationalist, solipsism must entail necessary conclusions.

jamest wrote:This means that we should strive to identify The Self with this whole unity - and avoid [habitually] thinking of ourselves as nought but the conscious element of existence - as so many of us do, including naive solipsists.

I agree with you there, I am more than my experiences.

Yes, the same reasoning applied to solipsism also lends itself to physicalism/materialism: whereby the 'self' can be considered as the totality of the brain + environmental/social influences.

Even a solipsist must embrace perceived environmental & social influences in any explanation of their own 'personality', though.

surreptitious57 wrote:
Disregarding the metaphysical element it is true that we are all one
experiencing in different ways : since all humans evolved from a
single self replicating cell dividing bacteria then we naturally
can be referenced as one or at least sharing an ancestry
that acknowledges this : admittedly this is not of the
philosophical interpretation this thread may how
ever require or demand : even so is still true

Are you aware that your style (the structural composition) of writing distracts from its content? It does for me, anyhow. No offence intended.

jamest wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Disregarding the metaphysical element it is true that we are all one
experiencing in different ways : since all humans evolved from a
single self replicating cell dividing bacteria then we naturally
can be referenced as one or at least sharing an ancestry
that acknowledges this : admittedly this is not of the
philosophical interpretation this thread may how
ever require or demand : even so is still true

Are you aware that your style ( the structural composition ) of writing distracts from its content It does for me anyhow

Most here accept it now and I imagine you will also
Just give it time : if not well then fair enough
But I seriously doubt that you will not find
it more accommodating in the future
Leave it for about two months
and then see how you feel

surreptitious57 wrote:

jamest wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Disregarding the metaphysical element it is true that we are all one
experiencing in different ways : since all humans evolved from a
single self replicating cell dividing bacteria then we naturally
can be referenced as one or at least sharing an ancestry
that acknowledges this : admittedly this is not of the
philosophical interpretation this thread may how
ever require or demand : even so is still true

Are you aware that your style ( the structural composition ) of writing distracts from its content It does for me anyhow

Most here accept it now and I imagine you will also
Just give it time : if not well then fair enough
But I seriously doubt that you will not find
it more accommodating in the future
Leave it for about two months
and then see how you feel

I seriously doubt anyone likes your posting style. Most here may have given up remarking on it, but that a is no endorsement. Perhaps most ignore your posts because the format irritates them. I am less inclined to read your posts because of it, and I have been encountering your posts for more than 2 months.

I don't think surreptitious does it to attract attention to his posts.

jamest wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
Does this not demonstrate that the non-conscious component of mind produces the dream, and the conscious component of the individual mind is aware of that product/content but not the actual production of it?

There is a problem, as Graham points out, of reading the conscious/non-conscious status of the mind as two minds, or two individuals: 'myself and God'.

... It has to be made clear that The Mind or The Self is but one ~thing~ ('X'). Thus, for the rational solipsist, X is simultaneously the non-conscious and conscious elements which constitute experience (i.e., both the author and reader of experience, so to speak).

This means that we should strive to identify The Self with this whole unity - and avoid [habitually] thinking of ourselves as nought but the conscious element of existence - as so many of us do, inc luding naive solipsists.

My experience of discussions like these shows me that nearly everyone has a naive understanding of solipsism. They think, as asdfjkl thinks, that there is no evidence of any existence other than their own consciousness. Clearly though, as pointed-out, there is evidence of a non-conscious producer of 'experience'. Further, and most significantly, they erroneously think that The Self is defined and constrained within the parameters of their consciousness. Hence, the epiphenomenal folly of different individuals with their own conscious minds, cannot be avoided. You and I, for example, are considered to be two individuals. This then results in the usual silly bickering one witnesses in comments like these:

"Yes. You exist 100% inside my own brain. So I command you to download spellcheck."

"Btw, whom are you asking?"

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

... All a product of naive solipsism.


Many/most people think that 'God' (or whatever you want to call it) is that which exists beyond the conscious self, such that God is deemed to be separate from the self. However, for the rational solipsist, God is at once itself, everything, and being everyone. There are no different individuals - there is just one individual experiencing itself in numerous ways.

This actually sounds like a similar view to my pantheistic view of the universe. I've thought about this form of solipsism before and quite like it. Very much like that of Brahman in Hindu philosophy. I am merely an aspect of this consciousness experiencing itself. Which actually makes sense in a solipsistic worldview because, from experience I do not seem to be or have any conscious connection to the greater subconscious or God-mind that creates the world around me. Dreams may be a smaller less 'real' part of this experience.

Bill Hicks speaks of the guy having taken acid and realising "we are just one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, we are just a dream of ourselves."

My view is somewhat different in the way that I have taken the actual physical universe to be that God-mind, of which I am the same substance, which is experiecing itself subjectively through the many entities around me. Same theory, different medium. Are either theories more plausible than the other?

jamest wrote:
any/most people think that 'God' (or whatever you want to call it) is that which exists beyond the conscious self, such that God is deemed to be separate from the self. However, for the rational solipsist, God is at once itself, everything, and being everyone. There are no different individuals - there is just one individual experiencing itself in numerous ways.

The silly me would like to have that spelled out clearly:
You and me and everybody else and "God" are one experiencing itself/herself/himself in numerous ways?
And how exactly is that more rational than what asdfjkl presents here?