Self-evidence (main q)

jamest · **#121** by **jamest** » Apr 12, 2012 3:43 pm

Regina wrote:Interesting point.
The concept of "crime" is literally impossible for a "rational" solipsist, or am I wrong?

You imply that experience is without purpose and meaning. Why?

A rational solipsist still experiences pain, physical and emotional. A rational solipsist can also have empathy for the pain of others like itself. Hence, it is a crime to hurt and be hurt.

Rational solipsism thus equates to some kind of moral absolutism synonymous with "Do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself". Hippy love.

If everyone became a rational solipsist, then, there'd be no more war, crime, inequality, poverty (unless everyone was poor), injustice, etc. etc.. The world would be unified and everyone would want the best for everyone else. Indeed, they'd want the best for all conscious beings, which implies that our concerns would extend to embrace the whole planet.

In my opinion, regardless of whether such a perspective can be proven to be true (which it can, imo), there exists no greater philosophy or set of ideals within and for 'humanity' as a whole. Such cannot be surpassed.

GrahamH · **#122** by **GrahamH** » Apr 12, 2012 3:43 pm

jamest wrote:- Rational solipsism (as I've called it), embraces this evident non-conscious element of one's Self within its narrative. The subsequent conclusion derived from this (about X being everyone), facilitates experiential interaction and communication between different consciousnesses housed within X itself. That is, X can experience itself in a singular 'domain', as being many different people/animals (and anything else that might be conscious)...

Solipsism admits only one consciousness James. One mind, many experienced identities. Memories and personalities parcelled up and hung on pegs like stage costumes, ready for X to indulge in cosmic cosplay.

GrahamH · **#123** by **GrahamH** » Apr 12, 2012 3:52 pm

Lobar wrote:I understand this point of view. But how does this explain dreams? In a dream there may be what seems to be individuals, but they obviously aren't conscious too?

Dreams are just other experiences. In dreams there may be experiences of your own identity, but those are only experiences, not who/what you are. There would be no real difference between waking and dreaming experiences, merely a difference in some qualities of the experiences. People in waking life are no more real people with their own minds than are characters in your dreams.

Of course there is no telling if every character that features in experiences is also experiences as a subjective identity / POV for X.

Have you played any multiplayer FPS shooter games where some characters are Bots? 99% of the people you see might be zombie Bots that X doesn't bother to have experiences of being. You couldn't tell. The cartoonist isn't compelled to imagine what its like to be Tom to draw Tom emoting. It's optional participation for X.

Regina · **#124** by **Regina** » Apr 12, 2012 3:54 pm

jamest wrote:
A rational solipsist still experiences pain, physical and emotional. A rational solipsist can also have empathy for the pain of others like itself. Hence, it is a crime to hurt and be hurt.

Here we have it, methinks.
You speak of others like yourself, which is quite different from X being the only one there is, and who happens to experience itself in a variety of under-Xes. In your line of reasoning, there can't be any crime, except the one that X commits against itself. And then it's not a crime.

GrahamH · **#125** by **GrahamH** » Apr 12, 2012 4:05 pm

jamest wrote:A rational solipsist can also have empathy for the pain of others like itself.

Bollocks James, there are no others like itself, there is only One. If there is any feeling to be had there is only X to have it.
That doesn't mean X can't make experiences of empathy for itself if it wants, but it all rings hollow when there is no other to suffer.

"Do unto yourself as you would have you do unto yourself".

jamest wrote:If everyone became a rational solipsist, then, there'd be no more war, crime, inequality, poverty (unless everyone was poor), injustice, etc. etc.. The world would be unified and everyone would want the best for everyone else. Indeed, they'd want the best for all conscious beings, which implies that our concerns would extend to embrace the whole planet.

If 'everyone' believed in solipsism they should accept that all experience is by X's will for X to X and stoically endure any pain or suffering, because X wishes it. No point arguing with yourself about how miserable some parts of the story you are writing are. Ther eis nobody to blame, or thank, but your One self.

jamest wrote:In my opinion, regardless of whether such a perspective can be proven to be true (which it can, imo), there exists no greater philosophy or set of ideals within and for 'humanity' as a whole. Such cannot be surpassed.

It is a evil ideology that would justify any atrocity as a valid experience that has been chosen by X. X has chosen to not include experience of reason or justification for suffering, because it doesn't suit X to do so. If X-as-James wants to argue with X's hidden purposes for X generating suffering then X-as-James is just complex.

Truly embracing solipsism you might as well kill someone to see what its like. It would be no different to me pinching myself to see how it feels.

Lobar · **#126** by **Lobar** » Apr 12, 2012 4:08 pm

jamest wrote:

A rational solipsist still experiences pain, physical and emotional. A rational solipsist can also have empathy for the pain of others like itself. Hence, it is a crime to hurt and be hurt.

What about the crimes the rational solipsist commits upon itself through disease and random events like tsunamis etc.?

Lobar · **#127** by **Lobar** » Apr 12, 2012 4:13 pm

GrahamH wrote:
jamest wrote:
Truly embracing solipsism you might as well kill someone to see what its like. It would be no different to me pinching myself to see how it feels.

I disagree Graham. Jamest does speak sense. The solipsist is already experiencing all this suffering already. The part of consciousness that you are does not need to add to that suffering, but rather try and eliminate that suffering.

The only problem with this worldview is that it opens up unanswerable questions like, "why is the solipsist doing all this to itself?" while a physical worldview removes that question entirely because the question is already answered. The laws of the universe just work like that. We still have other questions like "how did the universe come about etc."

Oh and rational solipsism is pretty much idealism isn't it?

Little Idiot · **#128** by **Little Idiot** » Apr 12, 2012 4:20 pm

GrahamH wrote:
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.

Thanks for that excellent post GrahamH.
Your final point, which I read as a clearer statement of your first paragraph is well made.
I agree that (by definition) I am not conscious of the non-conscious part of my mind, as you point out.
However, I respond that I know it is mind because to me only 'mind' can produce 'mental content' (be that thought or experience). Therefore, if one grants the non-conscious is the producer of the content known by awareness, i.e. known by the individual mind LI, then it follows that the non-conscious is mind.

The alternative is that not-mind can produce mental content, and thats gonna be a messy dualism.

Little Idiot · **#129** by **Little Idiot** » Apr 12, 2012 4:27 pm

Lobar wrote:"

Oh and rational solipsism is pretty much idealism isn't it?

Thats exactly my next question for Jamest. Whats the difference between 'rational solipsism' and mentalism? What does the word 'solipsism' actually add - because to me it is a nasty word.
Do you say there is or is not a distinction between LI and Cito?
I say there is, and this is the individuality. We are each an instance of awareness.

Your X is (parallel to) my World mind.

GrahamH · **#130** by **GrahamH** » Apr 12, 2012 4:29 pm

Lobar wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
jamest wrote:
Truly embracing solipsism you might as well kill someone to see what its like. It would be no different to me pinching myself to see how it feels.

I disagree Graham. Jamest does speak sense. The solipsist is already experiencing all this suffering already. The part of consciousness that you are does not need to add to that suffering, but rather try and eliminate that suffering.

The only problem with this worldview is that it opens up unanswerable questions like, "why is the solipsist doing all this to itself?" while a physical worldview removes that question entirely because the question is already answered. The laws of the universe just work like that. We still have other questions like "how did the universe come about etc."

Oh and rational solipsism is pretty much idealism isn't it?

You answer your own question. Why is the solipsist doing this to itself? Presumably it has reasons that are not to be found within experience of me or you. It might be vitally important to X that identity Y inflicts suffering on identity Z. Who can say otherwise?

The key point is that no suffering is imposed on X. It must all be deliberately self-inflicted.

GrahamH · **#131** by **GrahamH** » Apr 12, 2012 4:37 pm

Little Idiot wrote:
Lobar wrote:"

Oh and rational solipsism is pretty much idealism isn't it?

Thats exactly my next question for Jamest. Whats the difference between 'rational solipsism' and mentalism? What does the word 'solipsism' actually add - because to me it is a nasty word.
Do you say there is or is not a distinction between LI and Cito?
I say there is, and this is the individuality. We are each an instance of awareness.

Your X is (parallel to) my World mind.

The difference (in James' solipcism) is in the experienced identity. Cito is experienced as having memories M1, character C1, Physicality P1, and LI has M2, C2, P2.

'Instance of awareness' is where it gets messy. Clearly X being aware of being identity Cito is not aware of being identity LI at the same time, so the awareness of the One mind is somehow divided up to keep experiences distinct. That makes no sense to me, but applies to your mentalism just the same. Best I can do is assume time multiplexing. One instant is Cito experience, the next is LI experience, and no memory links them.

How do you introduce unawareness between instances of awareness within an ocean of awareness? How do you divorce a wave from the wetness of the ocean it is part of?

Little Idiot · **#132** by **Little Idiot** » Apr 12, 2012 4:56 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Little Idiot wrote:
Lobar wrote:"

Oh and rational solipsism is pretty much idealism isn't it?

Thats exactly my next question for Jamest. Whats the difference between 'rational solipsism' and mentalism? What does the word 'solipsism' actually add - because to me it is a nasty word.
Do you say there is or is not a distinction between LI and Cito?
I say there is, and this is the individuality. We are each an instance of awareness.

Your X is (parallel to) my World mind.

The difference (in James' solipcism) is in the experienced identity. Cito is experienced as having memories M1, character C1, Physicality P1, and LI has M2, C2, P2.

'Instance of awareness' is where it gets messy. Clearly X being aware of being identity Cito is not aware of being identity LI at the same time, so the awareness of the One mind is somehow divided up to keep experiences distinct. That makes no sense to me, but applies to your mentalism just the same. Best I can do is assume time multiplexing. One instant is Cito experience, the next is LI experience, and no memory links them.

How do you introduce unawareness between instances of awareness within an ocean of awareness? How do you divorce a wave from the wetness of the ocean it is part of?

There is only 'unawareness' from the individual point of view, not from WM point of view. WM is simultaneously aware of all instants and all perspectives, of M1, C1, P1; M2, C2, P2; Mn, Cn, Pn.
LI is only aware of M2, C2, P2, as cito is only aware of M1, C1, P1.
The unawareness is a limit on the system LI, an operational limit, individual awareness is not all-aware by necessity of being an individual - when all-awareness becomes considered as individual awareness this can only be by some form of limitation. Just as the wave is part of the ocean and isn' t non-ocean when considered as wave rather than ocean.

ETA Your 'Clearly X being aware of being identity Cito is not aware of being identity LI at the same time' is not clearly so at all, and IMO is an assumption/assertion which is an error.
Be interested in Jamest's take on that.
This is implicit in the nature of being World Mind, 'all-aware,' omnipotent or what ever.

Lobar · **#133** by **Lobar** » Apr 12, 2012 5:18 pm

Little Idiot wrote:

The alternative is that not-mind can produce mental content, and thats gonna be a messy dualism.

Why does it have to be dualism? Subjective experience can easily just be a property of the physical universe.

GrahamH · **#134** by **GrahamH** » Apr 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Little Idiot wrote:Your 'Clearly X being aware of being identity Cito is not aware of being identity LI at the same time' is not clearly so at all, and IMO is an assumption/assertion which is an error.
Be interested in Jamest's take on that.
This is implicit in the nature of being World Mind, 'all-aware,' omnipotent or what ever.

I think you mean that X/WM is somehow aware of Citos and LI's experiences in addition to being aware of being only Cito, and of being only LI. In your LI experiences there are no Cito experiences. Thus - Clearly X being aware of being identity Cito is not aware of being identity LI.

We get something like
X-as-P1
X-as-P2
...
X-as Pn

and
X-as-X sum(Pn)

Being simultaneously aware of n personal experiences cannot be identical to any of the individual experiences.
Being aware of producing experiences is not identical to having those experiences.

Little Idiot · **#135** by **Little Idiot** » Apr 12, 2012 5:37 pm

Lobar wrote:
Little Idiot wrote:

The alternative is that not-mind can produce mental content, and thats gonna be a messy dualism.

Why does it have to be dualism? Subjective experience can easily just be a property of the physical universe.

how?

Little Idiot · **#136** by **Little Idiot** » Apr 12, 2012 5:57 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Little Idiot wrote:Your 'Clearly X being aware of being identity Cito is not aware of being identity LI at the same time' is not clearly so at all, and IMO is an assumption/assertion which is an error.
Be interested in Jamest's take on that.
This is implicit in the nature of being World Mind, 'all-aware,' omnipotent or what ever.

I think you mean that X/WM is somehow aware of Citos and LI's experiences in addition to being aware of being only Cito, and of being only LI. In your LI experiences there are no Cito experiences. Thus - Clearly X being aware of being identity Cito is not aware of being identity LI.

What I mean is that LI is awareness as LI (individuality, instance of awareness LI, 'higher self') - since it is true to say that LI is part of WM, then it is also true to say that WM is awareness as LI, but it is as LI that WM is awareness as LI. I dont suggest LI is awareness as LI and additionally WM is aware of being LI. 'That part of WM which is LI' is what is aware of being LI.

IMO. The ego is a thought construction, generated and within the individual mind, and is not directly WM. As a product of individual mind, ego can be altered by individual mind.
The individuality is a though construct of WM not individual mind, and thus can not be altered by individual mind.
I can change the nature of my ego, 'transform myself' from personality 1 to personality 2. I can not change the nature of my individuality. I can not become a different individual.

We get something like
X-as-P1
X-as-P2
...
X-as Pn

and
X-as-X sum(Pn)

Yes.
'X as P1' is P1, P1 is nothing different to 'X as P1'
X as P1 is not aware of X as P2, therefore is not identical to X, it is identical in nature (X) but not magnitude/extent.

Being simultaneously aware of n personal experiences cannot be identical to any of the individual experiences.

Yes.

Being aware of producing experiences is not identical to having those experiences.

Yes.

asdfjkl · **#137** by **asdfjkl** » Apr 12, 2012 8:08 pm

aand my q was still not answered
why the fuck should i ebleive in things that arent self evident if i only have access to self evident?
shouldnt it be self evident nothing other than the self evident exists?

Regina · **#138** by **Regina** » Apr 12, 2012 8:13 pm

What are you asking? Translation?

jamest · **#139** by **jamest** » Apr 12, 2012 8:14 pm

Little Idiot wrote:
Lobar wrote:"

Oh and rational solipsism is pretty much idealism isn't it?

Thats exactly my next question for Jamest. Whats the difference between 'rational solipsism' and mentalism? What does the word 'solipsism' actually add - because to me it is a nasty word.

It's a word that has been largely abused, yes. And it doesn't 'sound' very nice - when you hear it for the first time, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the speaker has lost their teeth or something. :grin:

... Other than that, I'm not sure why you think it's 'ugly'.

I'm not privy to the full details of mentalism, so I'll let you be the judge of the comparison.

Do you say there is or is not a distinction between LI and Cito?

Yes - experiencing oneself as LI is definitely distinct to experiencing oneself as Cito.

I say there is, and this is the individuality. We are each an instance of awareness.

LI is not a different entity to Cito, it's just a different experience. If you think that LI is an entity in its own right, irreducible to anything else, then our philosophies are not the same.

Your X is (parallel to) my World mind.

Perhaps, I'm not sure. People are always giving different names to the same thing.

Regina · **#140** by **Regina** » Apr 12, 2012 8:25 pm

Thank goodness that this is completely arbitrary, james. And I don't mean to be flippant.
You and I are not different entities, in your philosophy. Or perhaps I should say Cito and I are not different entities, because it's nothing personal. Your philosophy has no bearing on the world as it is, and it explains nothing. The fact that you try to wriggle out of the problem through the introduction of different experiences doesn't make it more convincing. You and I and Cito are different entities. Unless you can come up with evidence to the contrary.

Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Who is online