"Reality is what I perceive it to be"

[Morrigan]

Solipsim is simply a useless, counterproductive way of thinking for idiots who want to avoid the responsibility of having to think critically.

 

[Yahzi]

Anyone know of good articles or posts, etc. pointing out the lameness of that argument?

I humbly submit my modest proposal:

The Yahzi Patented Baseball Bat Test (TM):

Step 1. Obtain a baseball bat.

Step 2. Fix your mind firmly on the notion that reality is what you think it is.

Step 3. Strike yourself forcefully in the head with the bat until step 2 is no longer possible.


The best thing is, the test is guaranteed to succeed! Either by coming to your senses, or destroying your brain, you will eventually reach step 2.



(One can view this as either an update of Johnsons' refutation of Berkely, or a twist on Goedel's proof that brute observation trumps all formal systems.)

 

[JamesDillon]

I think it's more two, although the this person hasn't gotten into it too deeply. I agree that the argument isn't lame, I guess I should have said it was lame logic to go to that argument in the context of the discussion.

What was the context of the discussion? You're right that the insurmountable uncertainty regarding external perceptions is right up there with quantum mechanics on the list of principles that frequently are misapplied so as to support nutty conclusions, but that doesn't undermine the validity of the principle itself.

 

[aerosolben]

1. I believe that all perceived reality is merely a projection of my mind (or impulses fed to my brain in a vat, whatever); or
2. It is impossible for me to know that all perceived reality is not merely a projection of my mind.

I think many here are fixating on a variation of #1, which is "All perceived reality is merely a projection of my mind which I can control.", which is easily falsifiable (via the simple hammer/brick/bat scenarios) and not really worth consideration. I doubt the subject of the thread espouses this view, or jimtron would have dispatched him easily without creating this thread.

 

[aerosolben]

The Krazy Kat Experiment

The brick may not kill Shirley, but not for the reasons you outline. To a solipsist, your mind does not exist as a seperate entity from their own mind - therefore, the thrown brick and the falling brick are equivalent scenarios. So this is not a good avenue to pursue - your phrase "while you - her creation - simultaneously constructs her" does not appear to be accurate.

In terms of needing to be aware of the brick before it hits, this is also not really applicable. The solipsist should (if they want to make any coherent sense) postulate the existence of an entity which creates the world they perceive - this could be their unconscious mind, the computer running the brain vat, etc. This is what creates the brick and drives it into their skull; the conscious mind is functionally seperate and does not need to participate in the action (beyond experiencing it).

There's a less violent scenario you can test at home - you simply sneak up behind them and poke them in the back of the head. If they admit to not consciously intending to feel the poke, then they've conceded the existence of such an entity.

 

[CFLarsen]

The brick may not kill Shirley, but not for the reasons you outline. To a solipsist, your mind does not exist as a seperate entity from their own mind - therefore, the thrown brick and the falling brick are equivalent scenarios. So this is not a good avenue to pursue - your phrase "while you - her creation - simultaneously constructs her" does not appear to be accurate.

In terms of needing to be aware of the brick before it hits, this is also not really applicable. The solipsist should (if they want to make any coherent sense) postulate the existence of an entity which creates the world they perceive - this could be their unconscious mind, the computer running the brain vat, etc. This is what creates the brick and drives it into their skull; the conscious mind is functionally seperate and does not need to participate in the action (beyond experiencing it).

There's a less violent scenario you can test at home - you simply sneak up behind them and poke them in the back of the head. If they admit to not consciously intending to feel the poke, then they've conceded the existence of such an entity.

No, no: Shirley's mind exists outside her brain. In fact, it creates the whole universe!

Besides, it isn't to prove solipsism, but to show how silly it is.

 

[jimtron]

What was the context of the discussion? You're right that the insurmountable uncertainty regarding external perceptions is right up there with quantum mechanics on the list of principles that frequently are misapplied so as to support nutty conclusions, but that doesn't undermine the validity of the principle itself.

You can judge for yourself if you like; here's a link:


The post by Jackscratch that starts with "What I am saying..." is one of the posts I was referring to (unfortunately the posts aren't numbered).

 

[aerosolben]

No, no: Shirley's mind exists outside her brain. In fact, it creates the whole universe!

Her brain doesn't need to exist as a physical entity. Your mind doesn't need to exist as a seperate entity from hers. Your statement is partly what I've already said and partly nonsensical. Are you sure you're talking about solipsism?

Let me be more explicit. Your argument breaks down here:

Before the brick hits Shirley, I shoot myself through the head, killing myself instantly. The question is: What happens? My mind cannot create the brick anymore, so it must vanish.

In this scenario, your mind most likely does not exist - you, as an entity, are simply a creation of her mind. Your mind is not creating the brick, hers is. Her mind has certainly not vanished at this point - there's is no reason why your death should have any impact on the brick, any more than dissipation of the gust of wind which knocks the brick off the roof would stop it from falling.

Besides, it isn't to prove solipsism, but to show how silly it is.

It's a straw man, and therefore shows nothing.

Note that I'm assuming Shirley MacLaine is a solipsist - there is not enough evidence in the link to draw a conclusion one way or the other.

 

[JamesDillon]

You can judge for yourself if you like; here's a link:


The post by Jackscratch that starts with "What I am saying..." is one of the posts I was referring to (unfortunately the posts aren't numbered).

Ok, that is a silly argument, not because Jackscratch points out the impossibility of certainty that our sense impressions accurately reflect external reality, but becuase he assumes that this means that we have some conscious control over the content of those impressions-- e.g., I want to believe that I'm a Martian, therefore I will literally see myself as one, or something like that. The fact that we can't be absolutely sure about perceived reality in no way suggests that we can exercise that kind of control over our impressions.

 

[JamesDillon]

You can judge for yourself if you like; here's a link:


The post by Jackscratch that starts with "What I am saying..." is one of the posts I was referring to (unfortunately the posts aren't numbered).

Ok, that is a silly argument, not because Jackscratch points out the impossibility of certainty that our sense impressions accurately reflect external reality, but becuase he assumes that this means that we have some conscious control over the content of those impressions-- e.g., I want to believe that I'm a Martian, therefore I will literally see myself as one, or something like that. The fact that we can't be absolutely sure about perceived reality in no way suggests that we can exercise that kind of control over our impressions.

 

[Red Siegfried]

I just tell them that if reality is subjective then reality is what I perceive it to be too and therefore my reality cancels out their reality. Two contradictory realities existing simultaneously in the same space/time framework is logically impossible, therefore the idea that reality is subjective can't be correct.

Failing that, I just smack them and then tell them it didn't happen. I don't have time for solopsism or isolationism. Intellectual masturbation, like the sexual kind, is a harmless, but self-centered activity. It satisfies yourself but nobody else.

If a tree falls on Shirley MacLaine in the woods, does anybody care?

 

[JamesDillon]

Failing that, I just smack them and then tell them it didn't happen. I don't have time for solopsism or isolationism. Intellectual masturbation, like the sexual kind, is a harmless, but self-centered activity. It satisfies yourself but nobody else.

Right, physical violence is always the best means of proving that your world view is superior to someone else's. Solipsism is entirely speculative, and we can never hope to find a shred of evidence for or against it. Believing it to be true is perhaps slightly more irrational than disbelieving it, but the appropriate position to take on this and all non-falsifiable claims is that we just can't know with certainty.

 

[aerosolben]

I just tell them that if reality is subjective then reality is what I perceive it to be too and therefore my reality cancels out their reality. Two contradictory realities existing simultaneously in the same space/time framework is logically impossible, therefore the idea that reality is subjective can't be correct.

You're a figment of the solipsist's imagination - you don't have a reality.

If a tree falls on Shirley MacLaine in the woods, does anybody care?

Ah, practicalism.

 

[Red Siegfried]

Right, physical violence is always the best means of proving that your world view is superior to someone else's.

It's not ALWAYS the best, but ... ah, that's another debate.