rationalskepticism.org

Frozenworld wrote:And the burden is on you to show that there is an external reality, which you haven't.

Apparently hallucinations and lucid dreams are all created by the brain as the link showed, so what evidence can you have for there being a reality external to yourself.

If anyone can't draw a valid inference it's you guys. Nothing you have mentioned suggests an external reality that is provable. All "Evidence" is through sensation which doesn't prove anything (especially given the case of illusions and how dreams and hallucinations work).

Somebody desperately needs to go and find out what the word 'empirical' means.

YOU are the ones positing a world out there and the burden rests with you to get evidence for it, but the only way to do that is through sensation which cannot be verified by any external source. In an epistemological sense you are trapped.

Except for that bit where, on solipsism, there is not nor can there be ANY epistemology. You have no idea of what you're on about.

Every point you make is guilty of the trilemma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

Dissent – The uncertainty demonstrated by the differences of opinions among philosophers and people in general.
Progress ad infinitum – All proof rests on matters themselves in need of proof, and so on to infinity. See regress argument.
Relation – All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as they are looked upon from different points of view.
Assumption – The truth asserted is based on an unsupported assumption.
Circularity – the truth asserted involves a circularity of proofs (known in scholasticism as "diallelus")

Nice try, but complete fail, and here's why: The assumption - the one I mentioned earlier upon which all of epistemology is founded - is not only supported by all the means detailed in this and every other asinine thread on this cretinous topic, but is stated up front as the foundation of epistemology: cogito ergo sum.

It's not only not unsupported, ALL the evidence supports it in a way that solipsism CANNOT BE SUPPORTED, even in principle. We call it observation.

In short you and I have got nothing.

Well, I've certainly got nothing from you. What I do have - that you don't - is a grasp of epistemology.