rationalskepticism.org

Little Idiot wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Curious that LittleIdiot completely ignored this series of post by rumraket and Graham.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philo ... l#p1842738

I responded directly to several of Grahams posts, although since apparently you dont experience the environment I call 'the world' your mistake is understandable.

I didnt respond to Rumraket for two reasons;
he didnt address me directly, so I wasnt compelled to respond.
he didnt claim the argument was valid, only logically sound

I think you've got those switched around. If it was sound, it'd be a fact. I happen to think it's actually sound, so I'd like to see actual valid responses.

Little Idiot wrote:I dont take issue with that, although its obviously invalid because it ignores other options.

No, it's fully dichotomous. I'm not saying what the nature of the external world is, I'm simply listing the two generalized options:
Either the world is created by our minds, or it is not and independently exists. That's it.

Little Idiot wrote:either materialism or solipsism; not solipsism, therefore materialism.

what about others, as not all idealism is solipsism? ignoring this makes the 'proof' invalid.

I've said nothing about the external world being equal to materialism. The argument simply evaluates the probability that the experienced world is made by my own mind, or not. That's it. That situation is fully dichotomous and encompasses all concievable possibilities.

You can now proceed to deal with the actual argument.

Dealing with last line first, your actual argument clearly states (my colour) (click the link to confirm what you wrote, not what you meant or think you wrote)
Hypothesis 1 (Solipcism). The world we percieve is constructed by your own mind.

So, we are done, right?