Posted: Apr 08, 2021 5:20 am
by Spearthrower
Frozenworld wrote:
This is not correct. I only have my own senses. Anything else is speculation. I don't have evidence that you have senses. I can't know you aren't a philosophical zombie.


Its a broken record. I've already shown beyond any rebuttal you've mustered doubt why this is bollocks, but you just keep repeating it.

If you truly want to believe something, then no one can ever convince you otherwise. But you really need to explain why you are so desperate to talk to other people you contend plausibly don't exist and parrot your fucking stupid idea at them repeatedly regardless of what they say.

Other people's existence is no more speculative than you own. You fail - repeatedly - to apply standards consistently.

Further, and yes I've explained this one already to you as well, another example of your idea's inconsistency is that the very same senses you claim to just know you have are also telling you that other people exist. Ergo, if you CAN trust your senses, then other people exist - but if other people don't really exist, then you CAN'T trust your senses. This is called a well. It is one you have dug for yourself, and now you've jumped down it and refuse to believe there's anything outside the well anymore.

It's not even silly FW.


Frozenworld wrote:
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.


That's the main point of solipsism though. That we can't truly trust our senses and that the only thing we know is that we exist in some form.


No, it's not. That's bullshit. No component of solipsism says 'we can't trust our senses'. You made that up ad hoc, and of course, you contradicted what you'd just written in the previous paragraph.

How exactly is your idea meant to be taken seriously when possessing it causes you to write these two sentences:


I only have my own senses. Anything else is speculation.

we can't truly trust our senses and that the only thing we know is that we exist in some form.


You can't even formulate a consistent argument, and the reason for that is that the idea you are trying to expound is internally contradictory, self-defeating, and lacking any coherence.


Frozenworld wrote: If we didn't then we wouldn't be thinking now or having any sort of experience.


Moronic.

The same argument applies. By the same criteria you're sloppily trying to apply elsewhere, you don't know you're thinking or having experiences - they could be merely hallucinations.

I've explained this to you as well already. What you suppose are your thoughts and experiences are really just figments of MY imagination - I'm the One True Mind, and all the thoughts and experiences you feel you are having are really just projected into you from me, the One True Source.

It's so fun to write inane assertions without bothering with logic, reason, or credibility, isn't it?


Frozenworld wrote:One thing you can be sure if is that you exist in some from. Everything else, not so much.


Go see how little the floor exists if you jump out of the 2nd storey window.


Frozenworld wrote: The objects that stimulate can be illusions or not even real, as many experiments can show.


An unreal object. Oooh aren't we in for a treat - you're not just making up new philosophy inconsistent with everything in the world, but now we get New Science too!


Frozenworld wrote: Optical illusions trick us into seeing what isn't there.


Yet the optical illusion is factually there, ergo your contention is wrong. You still need a physical object to trick the eyes and brain.

And who is "US"? Can't you remain consistent across a single paragraph? You're contending that you have no way of knowing we exist, so why are you now appealing to everyone else to try and establish your point? If you're being consistent, then it is YOU who are tricked by optical illusions, which means it must be YOU whose observational skills are in doubt.


Frozenworld wrote: Color is LITERALLY all in your head, it doesn't exist in the world and neither does sound.


You had both of these explained to you already in another thread of dross you started:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philo ... l#p2764556

You're talking shit to people who clearly know better than you. No one's jumping down the well with you, I'm afraid.


Frozenworld wrote:You don't have a solid argument for "other things".


And, of course, I've already addressed this assertion half a dozen times too. I don't need to come up with any superior justification to the one that you've offered to debunk your contention. The exact same argument you use to justify your senses and mind, I also get to use to justify my senses and mind - my senses and mind tell me other things exist (because I can see outside my own rectal passage) and these are corroborated by thousands - millions - billions of other human minds. If I see a wall, I can't walk through it as it exists empirically in the objective world... and lo and behold, no one else can walk through it either - do you want to claim you can walk through a wall that I can see? Going to try and appeal to optical illusions when your face is grinding against concrete?



Frozenworld wrote:
Actually no, none of that is any indication that stuff is outside our minds.


Qualification: actually, it very much is to serious minds capable of serious thought. You, on the other hand, have a faith position you want to tell people but are unable to support with anything other than repetitive blind declarations.



Frozenworld wrote:All of it could not have existed until we observed it.


/point and laugh



Frozenworld wrote:How can one know any of this exists outside of their senses? You can't.


How about you try reading what people have written in response to your previous asinine assertions to this effect?



Frozenworld wrote: All we have access to is our own immediate experience.


And according to your OWN ARGUMENT, there is NO reason whatsoever for you to trust your own immediate experience - but that would require you to be consistent, and for you to be consistent there would need to be a cogent argument, which there most certainly is not.



Frozenworld wrote: That's what I am getting at and why this is so stubborn to get rid of.


You said what you are getting at a dozen times and it's not convinced anyone for the reasons they've given you. However, you are unable to address anyone's replies, which is why you have long since just started repeating your assertions dogmatically.



Frozenworld wrote: Because one cannot deny the fundamental truth...


See? You're working hard to craft a faith position, but no one here shares that faith.



Frozenworld wrote: that all we have is sensation and everything else is just induction.


i) inconsistencies: all 'we' have? No no no, you are contending there's no reason to believe that anyone other than you exists, ergo it's only YOU who has X... and of course, the fact that despite your senses explicitly telling you that other people exist, you don't trust your senses in that regard, meaning your supposed justification for knowing you have senses and experiences is shown to be nothing more than an assertion which is internally contradicted by other of your assertions.


Frozenworld wrote: I can't be sure you exist or that the world won't end when I die.


Yawn



Frozenworld wrote:I believe people do exist and have minds, but have no proof of this.


You have no more 'proof' that you exist or that you have a mind.



Frozenworld wrote:I believe that the world will persist beyond my death, but again I can't know that.


Do these statements feel deep to you? Do you feel like you're plumbing some uncharted intellectual territory, or something?



Frozenworld wrote:There is a lot we take for granted and it shapes our navigation of the world, and once you see you have no basis for it, well....


Well nothing. Take whatever you like for granted as you navigate your way to sitting on a train track and see how little basis you have for believing in physical reality when you hear the train coming. Incidentally, the world won't end when the train smashes your existence in a meaty sludge, but you will cause a fairly sizeable number of people to be late for work.



Frozenworld wrote:Solipsism came in many flavors, most recently the Boltzmann Brain paradox which the math shows is inevitable given infinite time.


Oh dear - another half-arsed series of assertions. If you think the Boltzmann Brain Paradox lends succor to solipsism, then I guess we have yet another thing to add to the list of things you don't understand but pretend to in order to argue with strangers whose existence you question.

There are multiple flavours of solipsism: there's narcissism flavour, and there's bloody ignorant, desperately in need of an education flavour.



Frozenworld wrote:You say I have evidence, but what is that?


What is it?

You are sitting in front of a computer screen. Rotate your chair 180 degrees. Stand up. Run forward at maximum speed.

When the bleeding stops, let us know what happened and how you manage to explain that to yourself. Did you just use the power of your One True Mind to conjure up the experience of running face first into a wall? Why would you do such a stupid thing to yourself? Why didn't you just run forever without hindrance? Ooh ooh ooh! I know, I know - pick me! It's because the world exists entirely independently of you, it existed before you were born and will continue to exist once you shuffle off the mortal coil. You're just not that important in any scheme of things, but you can make your bloody mark on the wall of reality as testament to your brief existence.



Frozenworld wrote: My senses?


You lack any good faith in discussion too. No, you don't respond to someone else's post which clarifies the faults in your post by dragging back in your faulty assumptions to answer for them.



Frozenworld wrote:In that case then my dreams are real.


Uh of course your dreams are real. They're real in exactly the same way as when you remember an event that happened in the past. There are physical, chemical systems of storing memories in your brain, and so you are absolutely experiencing your dreams. The content of those dreams isn't real - you're not really having a spaghetti fight with Santa Clause in a bath of blancmange, but that you're dreaming is not at all controversial, and can even be observed and recorded independently of your reporting.



Frozenworld wrote:Is it persistence? Everything ends or breaks down so that's out.


Whu...?



Frozenworld wrote: Your say so? That's a fallacy in and of itself.


Then your entire thread and everything you've written is fallacious.



Frozenworld wrote:There is a reason solipsism is called logically impeccable. It can't be attacked or defended.


An idea constructed never to be testable is an idea that is veridically worthless.

I understand how people like you - new agey mysticist types - think that holding positions which speculate based on gaps in what can be ascertained lends you some kind of kudos - but to those of us who don't share your religious motivations, we find your ideas inconsistent, poorly reasoned, self-contradictory, and clearly derived entirely from what you want to believe rather than what's actually justifiable - you think you're being deep, but I'm afraid at this forum, your ideas are exposed as being shallow as a gnat's piss puddle.