Posted: Sep 20, 2021 11:24 pm
by Frozenworld
Spearthrower wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:
Because you haven't made rational challenges to it.

This entire thread shows that to be either an outright lie, or ridiculous levels of incompetence.

Frozenworld wrote:There is nothing you can say that can lead to the conclusion that external entities are more likely than just figments.

Rather: you are completely unwilling or wholly incapable of engaging with any of the numerous arguments that have been written in this thread - which is why you just keep repeating yourself and dismissing every challenge.

Nothing I can say: then what the fuck are you doing talking to people if you're already so close-minded and certain of yourself?

more likely: please cite the data you used to compile your statistical analysis, and also supply that statistical analysis.

conclusion: to arrive at a conclusion, you need to provide some substantive argumentation, not just an argument from incredulity.

entities: your incompetence is genuinely perplexing - your own argument holds that there are no other entities at all, yet here you are once again fundamentally disabling your own position.

external: your incompetence is genuinely perplexing - your own argument holds that there is no external at all, yet here you are once again fundamentally disabling your own position. ... ger-effect

Dunning-Kruger effect, in psychology, a cognitive bias whereby people with limited knowledge or competence in a given intellectual or social domain greatly overestimate their own knowledge or competence in that domain relative to objective criteria or to the performance of their peers or of people in general. ... ssessments

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.

Frozenworld wrote: It's far from parsimony, and so far your only argument is that it's nonsense which doesn't cut it.

You clearly don't understand 'parsimony'. Parsimony doesn't say that the claim with the fewest parts is right, rather that there should be no more than necessary to explain a phenomenon. Your position explains nothing at all - and in fact, it outright fails in the face of the evidence. You have no answer at all for anything - your position is a faith position, a belief, and one you can't justify using reason or evidence.

And don't lie FW - the entire thread is still here, and everyone can read that you've been presented with a dozen or more challenges to your position, so characterizing all of them as just people saying 'it's nonsense' is bullshit.

The only person here who's refused to engage is you. And you've refused to engage in anything.

Which is hilariously inept.

Guess again, solipsism is parsimony:

"Solipsism is a form of logical minimalism. Many people are intuitively unconvinced of the nonexistence of the external world from the basic arguments of solipsism, but a solid proof of its existence is not available at present. The central assertion of solipsism rests on the nonexistence of such a proof, and strong solipsism (as opposed to weak solipsism) asserts that no such proof can be made. In this sense, solipsism is logically related to agnosticism in religion: the distinction between believing you do not know, and believing you could not have known."

Literally any google search will prove solipsism to be the most parsimonious explanation.

And this and the two links you have there already show that to be true: ... e-thoughts

So I'm still waiting on how solipsism is proven false, because you can't prove it false.