Poll based on the recent discussion on my thread.

So any thoughts on the entire matter?

BTW here I'm talking about not whether what you experience is "real" but whether you actually experience what you experience.

asdfjkl wrote:BTW here I'm talking about not whether what you experience is "real" but whether you actually experience what you experience.

Excuse me? What is the difference between "Real" and "actually experience"?

Quite simply, someone who hallucinates, might well psychologically experience their imagined adventure, but nothing real will happen as a result. For example, if you hallucinate that you are falling from the top of the Empire State Building, you might well cause your self to suffer from various physical maladies, owing to the explosion of fear chemistry within you, and you could even cause your own death that way. However, if perception=reality, then your body would be physically crushed, and would suffer damage identical to what would happen if you ACTUALLY fell off the Empire State Building. Feel free to test this on yourself if you care to.


Sounds to me as though you are demanding that others side with you in your belief that "I think, therefore I am, and I observe, therefore I am right."

In a word, nonsense.

Of course you actually experience what you experience - by definition.

FFS not another thread. Look asdfjkl, we will never know if the world is just one big illusion. It's perfectly likely that "me" 5 seconds ago is not the same "me" now. It could all just be an illusion - that my chemical make up is some kind of special "personal" entity, in reality that illusion provides me with either an evolutionary advantage, or is the byproduct of some other biological function that helps us pass on genes.

You are just bunch of chemicals and the product of billions of years of biological evolution. You only exist because organisms before you were successful passing on their genes. It's a chemical process, nature doesn't care for "experience" or "self evidence" or any other garbage like that.

Get on with your life and stop asking the same pointless question.

Regina wrote:

Lobar wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Yes, well, your assumption that those subjective experiences are the only evident/irrefutable things is what leads you to think that subjective experiences are the only thing that exists. You have one kind of faulty thinking producing another, and we'll just agree to let that be your own show. Enough already with making your conclusion of solipsism from a faulty premise anyone's problem but your own. Your faulty premises are only irrefutable if you are already a solipsist. You're going in circles.

I will side with asdfjkl on this one. How would you refute subjective experiences? It seems pretty certain to me that I am looking at what seems to be my laptop right now. At least an image that looks like a physical laptop. How can I possibly refute that?

And I don't see why refutability has to deal with one person refuting another person.

Read the first sentence in Cito's post again. There's a reason why he uses italics.

Well, then what other things are certain, that help avoid solipsism? Huh? Thought so.

Lobar wrote:
Well, then what other things are certain, that help avoid solipsism?

Other threads.

The way to avoid solipsism is to visit another thread that is not about solipsism, effectively ignoring it.

There is a pronounced tendency in some particularly inept arguments to make the base assumption that the thread arguing in favour of solipsism is the only thing in the universe. YMMV.

You can test this by visiting another thread, not about solipsism, and attempt to introduce solipsism. It's up to you.

A wise man, at least to me, once told me: All experience is real, but not all experience is true.

What makes something 'true' then? I would say the Objectivity of it, others who share it.

Weaver wrote:Of course you actually experience what you experience - by definition.

Not me, man. Through the miracle of science and empiricism, I can experience what other people experience. Within the limits of experimental error. I can measure the acceleration due to gravity near sea level on planet Earth to be about 9.81 m s-2. It's an experience not to be missed!

But yes, in a very trivial sense, A is exactly A. But you're not the person you were five minutes ago. Deconstruction is a privilege, and not a right!

Subjective experience is anecdotal. True or False? You have a subjective experience to share? Tell us about it!! But... you could by lying! If you experience an erection lasting longer than 4 hours, seek medical attention immediately!

asdfjkl wrote:BTW here I'm talking about not whether what you experience is "real" but whether you actually experience what you experience.

Tautology is tautological.

As a figment of your imagination, I don't see how I can have any experiences at all, let alone actual ones.

Thommo wrote:As a figment of your imagination, I don't see how I can have any experiences at all, let alone actual ones.

Actually, you're a figment of my imagination, but for some strange reason you're not Cameron Diaz, not in a bikini and not in my bedroom.

BlackBart wrote:

Thommo wrote:As a figment of your imagination, I don't see how I can have any experiences at all, let alone actual ones.

Actually, you're a figment of my imagination, but for some strange reason you're not Cameron Diaz, not in a bikini and not in my bedroom.

Sorry.

Eliminative materialists are free to deny that consciousness exists. They just have to accept a little collateral damage, that science doesnt exist either.

pl0bs wrote:Eliminative materialists are free to deny that consciousness exists. They just have to accept a little collateral damage, that science doesnt exist either.

Clinical consciousness is necessary to do science, but it is not sufficient. Funny how that works.

Weaver wrote:Of course you actually experience what you experience - by definition.

This is the issue of my question.

OK but the issue here is whether there is a "not evident" for "evident". I know that I am a limited set, that's about it.

asdfjkl wrote:OK but the issue here is whether there is a "not evident" for "evident". I know that I am a limited set, that's about it.

No, asdf. That is not the issue. You don't get to tell everyone else what the 'issue' is. Especially as someone who relies on the subjective quite as much as you say you do. Even so, you are more than welcome to believe every voice you hear but the one you think is your own is the voice of crazy.

OK, this is my problem. We have cleared up the matter that the existence of subjective experience is irrefutable. As is your own existence. We also know that those things are the only ones we know exist for certain, or to be evident is to be irrefutable. Now, what I'm afraid of is that it is equally evident and irrefutable that me and my subjective experiences are THE ONLY THINGS that exist, which seems to me to follow from what was cleared up before.
BTW Lobar you still haven't told me what you were worried about that was similar to temporal solipsism.