Posted: Mar 24, 2021 10:26 pm
by Spearthrower
Frozenworld wrote:
The problem is that there isn't really evidence to the contrary.

That's not how reasoned discourse works.

Why exactly are you worried about 'evidence to the contrary' when you've got no evidence at all for any of your claims?

This clearly isn't a conversation about evidence, and if you wish to suddenly raise the bar for claims to now being needed to be supported by evidence, then every claim you've made also needs to cross that bar too.

Frozenworld wrote: All I have is my own senses to tell me what's going on.


You also have other peoples' senses to tell you what's going on. For example. I can tell you it's night time here. It's probably not night time where you are, and you probably didn't think about how dark the sky is for me as I write this, but now I've just told you - you can now picture that I am sitting in a room lit by a light bulb and the outside world is pitch dark. Your senses were completely useless in divining that information.

Further, as has now been pointed out in spades, according to your own 'logic' - you have absolutely no reason whatsoever to trust that your senses are operating at all - all your senses' output could be wholly a figment of your imagination or - still using your 'logic' - could be a figment of someone else's imagination.

If only you exist, and all other people are just a figment of your imagination, yet your senses clearly indicate to you that other people exist, then either a) your entire contention is fatally flawed and you are not the only person who exists, or b) your senses are misleading you thus you cannot contend that you can rely on your senses.

This is why solipsism is so devoid of credibility to anyone with half a functioning brain - because it's self-contradictory. No idea that genetically contradicts itself is an idea worth lending credence to.

And you still haven't even touched trying to reason with the problem of who it is you're supposedly having this conversation with, or why exactly you're engaging in this conversation while pretending to be erecting a logical defense of solipsism.

It's such a bad idea, and you're so desperate to lend belief to it.

Frozenworld wrote: I can't exactly verify them without being able to go outside of them, which I can't.

Um, your senses ARE the things which let you go outside - they're your means of perceiving the world external to you. Verification of the credibility of those senses comes in many forms, for example, autonomic reactions indicate that the external world can induce into you movements you can't control, heat can make you leap away. Other means of verification involve intersubjective considerations, the fact that multiple agents can all cross-interrogate their subjective experiences to find common characteristics.

Frozenworld wrote: For all I know there is no world outside of me and it's all just inside my own head, like a dream.

Mystical obfuscatory bollocks. Your own arguments do not allow this to be valid - trying to maintain this genetically undermines your own argument.

Frozenworld wrote:I don't really believe that but unfortunately I can't really say much besides that I don't believe it's all in my head. Motivated reasoning doesn't apply here.

Factually, it's motivated reasoning from the ground up. You're trying to argue for a position which you pretend you're not committing to, but the reality is that you're ignoring the litany of problems other people raise - flat out ignoring them - and simply asserting over and over again, absent any evidence or reasoning, a position which is manifestly failing to correspond to any approximation of reality.

Frozenworld wrote:There is some arguments that say that since our brains construct reality based on the input of our senses that this in a sense can support solipsism since we are only seeing a filtered view of reality itself. I have no counter point to this.

I do: poppycock!

Try it - try saying 'poppycock' to yourself more often, because you clearly need to hear it.

Our brains don't 'construct reality' - whoever claims that is already mystified into gibbering nonsense, and that claim by you amounts to nothing more than circular reasoning.

Rather, what credible people say is that external reality exists entirely independently of us, and our senses and brain are able to perceive some parts of that reality dependent on our senses - we can see light bouncing off it which allows us to perceive a shape and colour, we can sniff it to detect the release of any chemicals given off, we can touch it to feel the texture and temperature.

What we can all agree on is that our senses do not give us an entire picture, senses do not give us all maximal data about an object we encounter, but that's a rather different argument than the mystical pap that the object is being created internally.

Again, this is how stupid this idea you're buying into is: you now want reality to be constructed by your mind which only has access to that reality by mind-governed senses, so your position now has you creating a reality that you can only partially perceive. This is becoming more equivalent to religious belief than philosophy.

Frozenworld wrote:To be honest it's difficult to communicate the loneliness of understanding how all you have is your own senses and that everything around you could be a lie or not even real.

Sorry, play your pathos card somewhere else - I don't care how 'lonely' you are; it's fuck all to do with the point, and considering the consequences of your argument, it's comparatively irrelevant since I and everyone else don't get to feel 'lonely' or, in fact, feel anything at all as we're all just figments of your imagination.

The fact that I outright don't give a fuck about your feelies while you're looking for empathy and understanding from me should suggest to you that I am entirely independent of those feelies, and that consequently I cannot be constructed by your imagination.

You can then take it further: as I am not constructed by your imagination, and as I clearly possess my own senses (for example being able to read what you've written and respond to it) then your very own argument could suggest to you that YOU are a figment of MY imagination, and it's my mind and my senses which are the One True Mind and One True Senses, but because narcissism walks hand-in-hand with solipsism, you of course don't even consider this.

Feel worse now? Even your apparent loneliness is simply a quirk of my thought landscape - it's a mind state I made up for you to have so that I could have a more edifying conversation with myself. Funny how you won't lend that credence, and the fact that you won't is yet another indicator of the rational bankruptcy of your position.

Of course, the 'solution' to this manufactured problem is that we are distinct entities, that I possess different experiences and thoughts to you and thus you can know, very well, very clearly, that other people exist independently of your mind. Consequent to that, and nailing that absurd coffin shut, if multiple experiencing subjects exist then we can test our senses by reporting what we sense in a specific context and cross-corroborating it.... in fact, that's the cornerstone of one of the most useful means of knowing shit in the world (epistemology) - it's called 'intersubjective verifiability'.

Humans tend to begin to learn this theory of mind around the age of 3 or 4.

Straight up - if you genuinely cannot perceive intersubjective verifiablity, then you almost certainly need to see a neurologist or a psychologist because either some damage has occurred to your brain, or you are suffering from sociopathy having no empathy, and concept or understanding of other people.

You want consequences to your belief system? Them's the real world consequences.

Frozenworld wrote:Not that it is, but considering that possibility is what scares me.

Are you also able to frighten yourself by imagining a particularly terrifying monster with too many eyes, big fangs, and acidic saliva lurking under your bed?

Why shouldn't you be able to do that? It's contrary to reason, like your stated belief - it's contrary to evidence, like your stated belief - it's lacking any credibility, like your stated belief - and it's childishly self-obsessed, like your stated belief.

By all accounts, you should be able to do this to yourself. If you can't, and particularly if you wish to quickly dismiss this, then I'm gonna have to say it: motivated reasoning. You want to believe X, so you only allow yourself to consider things that corroborate X and refuse to engage in anything that is Not-X.... whereas, the reality is here that the Not-X vastly outweighs any consideration of X in any reasoned discourse.

Frozenworld wrote:That I'm just living a dream and when I die nothing I will do will have mattered because no one was real. There is no point to helping others because they don't have emotions, etc. Again, not saying they don't. But I can't really verify it. I only have the words of what I can only believe to be "others" and have to take it on faith.



Sorry, but your New Age pap is just ignoring all the errors already identified in this wibble.

Frozenworld wrote:I know I have feelings and thoughts and all that,...

Nope, false. This has been pointed out to you in such clear terms that your continued ignorance of it is no longer acceptable.

You do not KNOW these things. You BELIEVE them.

You've given zero rationale why you lend belief to your senses, but ironically don't lend belief to the objects which stimulate your senses.

This has been shown to be fatally flawed from any reasoned position several times - despite your terminal unwillingness to engage honestly in any level of meaningful exchange.

In reality, you do have feelings and thoughts, and the reason why you can trust them (for the most part) is not simply that you possess them but that they continuously provide you with approximations of reality that allow you and your meaty bits to navigate an independently existing reality. Additional to that, other people also exist, and they also experience that independent external reality and thus also have thoughts and feelings which are wholly independent of yours.

Frozenworld wrote:I but with others I have to assume that.

To the exact same degree that you have to assume that you possess thoughts and feelings, and not a jot more.

Frozenworld wrote:I That's what hurts.

Am I supposed to be sympathetic that you keep poking yourself in the eye and declaring it hurts?

Frozenworld wrote: What I "knew" to be facts (other people, external reality, etc) are more beliefs than anything else.

Back on the Merry-Go-Round. If that's the case, then you are also obliged by reason to apply it to your own thoughts and feelings, ergo you've become an omni-nihililist for no good reason at all.

Frozenworld wrote:And I don't know how to deal with that.

Locate the motion of your arm which is currently engaged in a motion that moves its most distal appendage into a trajectory that impacts with the contents of your ocular orbit, then stop doing that motion.

They're supposed to be YOUR thoughts and feelings, and those thoughts and feelings are supposed to be quite literally manufacturing reality, so if you are unable to exert any control over those thoughts and feelings, then your contentions are once again shown to be internally contradictory.

Frozenworld wrote:Some arguments like this can help: ... rid=uHpSfZ


Frozenworld wrote:But at the end of the day the possibility is scary and still haunts me. It's leaving me scared to invest in life for fear it's not real.


Either you do believe this, in which case you need to seek medical help - and I mean that absolutely honestly.

Or you're talking shit for a rise with strangers on the internet.

Of course, the very fact that you are motivated to seek out people - complete strangers on the internet, no less - to tell them that you've very scared of the unassailable logic that informs you that those very people don't exist - very, very strongly suggests that you don't actually believe a word you're wittering about.

If you truly were as convinced of this as you claim, then you STILL need to explain why you're engaged in this internally contradictory behavior. If I don't exist, why are you repeatedly coming here to argue with what I write? How is it that I can even write something you don't agree with if you're the dude constructing reality with his mind? How is your behavior here (i.e. coming to a webforum to splurge narcissistic crap at people) in any way consistent with your own claims? Answer: it's not. It's clearly bollocks.

Finally, why aren't you even more terrified that your thoughts and senses are just figments of someone else's imagination? What if it's actually ME who's the One True Mind - and while you believe you exist, you actually don't - I made you up for fun, so your entire life is a meaningless lie - that seems to me to have considerably upped the 'scary' stakes.

We can do this as long as you need to.