Is Solipsism as likely as Reality?

[Undesired Walrus]

Before I go out tonight to see in the new year, I thought I may ponder the question of whether the concept of 2009 is entirely formulated inside my brain.

First of all, I wish to pose the following thoughts, especially if a solipsist sympathiser declares that 'knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified'.

If it (solipsism) had some validity, wouldn't it be strange to have your thoughts on solipsism influenced by external fantasies? If these were not a product of absolute reality, for what reason would we be able to trust these delusions? When we originally stumble across the idea of solipsism, it is a result of being influenced by the physical, external world, or that is: The physical, external body and matter of the mind of philosophers. If a statement of the nature of absolute reality was ever made, it would be almost always be the product of what we listen to or observe in the physical, external world.

It seems these solipsists argue that we (materialists) cannot trust the physical universe to give us the absolute truth, yet they can presume (at least subconsciously) to trust it when they draw external thoughts and ideas from it about solipsism.

You are deriving your thoughts about absolute reality from the external, potentially false world, and there is the contradiction.

Regardless, this doesn't mean it is not true. But is it as likely as reality? I suppose you could begin by arguing that there is no evidence that a brain can contain that amount of information, whilst there is evidence the human brain can only hold so much, but the likely counter to this argument would be that given we are not in this solipsist ultimate reality, so we cannot make judgements on what 'rules' on information storage are applied there.

Untestable, unfalsifiable, but as likely as reality?

 

[plumjam]

I think you´ll be lucky to get any takers. I´ve never seen anyone on this forum (or in real life either) claim to be a solipsist, nor even to have serious solipsistic sympathies. It´s kind of ironic that the issue tends to have wind put into its sails predominantly by materialists, who do so in order to be able to push anyone who is a non-materialist, into the strawman position of solipsism.
So, for example, instead of taking something like idealism on its merits and arguing from there, idealism is characterised as solipsism or ´on the slippery slope towards solipsism´ and such like. Such a tactic is kind of handy for those who are not really interested in applying skepticism to their own position via seriously exploring alternatives for what they really are.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think you´ll be lucky to get any takers. I´ve never seen anyone on this forum (or in real life either) claim to be a solipsist, nor even to have serious solipsistic sympathies. It´s kind of ironic that the issue tends to have wind put into its sails predominantly by materialists, who do so in order to be able to push anyone who is a non-materialist, into the strawman position of solipsism.
So, for example, instead of taking something like idealism on its merits and arguing from there, idealism is characterised as solipsism or ´on the slippery slope towards solipsism´ and such like. Such a tactic is kind of handy for those who are not really interested in applying skepticism to their own position via seriously exploring alternatives for what they really are.

I am not a materialist, but let's say I play one on this forum.

I have argued many times that solipsism is an incoherent position, since it has no explanation for the consistency of the external world. Therefore I think it's fair to say that I have not pushed immaterialists into a position of solipsism. I have only asked them for an explanation of the consistency of the external world.

It seems these solipsists argue that we (materialists) cannot trust the physical universe to give us the absolute truth, yet they can presume (at least subconsciously) to trust it when they draw external thoughts and ideas from it about solipsism.

They would squirm and twist and make the external world a product of their own mind. However, as I said, they have trouble with the consistency of that external world.

~~ Paul

 

[MattusMaximus]

I would respond in a meaningful way to the OP, but seeing as how all of this is simply a figment of my imagination I shall merely make smarmy comments and move on

 

[MattusMaximus]

I think you´ll be lucky to get any takers. I´ve never seen anyone on this forum (or in real life either) claim to be a solipsist, nor even to have serious solipsistic sympathies. It´s kind of ironic that the issue tends to have wind put into its sails predominantly by materialists, who do so in order to be able to push anyone who is a non-materialist, into the strawman position of solipsism.
So, for example, instead of taking something like idealism on its merits and arguing from there, idealism is characterised as solipsism or ´on the slippery slope towards solipsism´ and such like. Such a tactic is kind of handy for those who are not really interested in applying skepticism to their own position via seriously exploring alternatives for what they really are.

PJ, what really is the difference between solipsism and idealism? I've never been able to distinguish it myself.

 

[Starthinker]

They would squirm and twist and make the external world a product of their own mind. However, as I said, they have trouble with the consistency of that external world.

~~ Paul

But since it is only my world perhaps I made it consistent.

 

[plumjam]

PJ, what really is the difference between solipsism and idealism? I've never been able to distinguish it myself.

To put it simply, solipsism is the notion that reality exists only from, and confined to, the point of view of the particular individual who is entertaining solipsism. So that if MattusMaximus is in a bar and his eyes alight on a particularly enticing cleavage, under solipsism when he looks away, in order to appear non-lecherous, then that cleavage disappears from reality.
Idealism, on the other hand, is wise enough to retain all enticing cleavages everywhere, in existence, by constantly staring at them. God ain't stupid.
Idealism is the fidgety cross-eyed guy at the end of the bar.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Haruhi Suzumiya^WP has left the building.

 

[anticonspiracy911]

Before I go out tonight to see in the new year, I thought I may ponder the question of whether the concept of 2009 is entirely formulated inside my brain.

First of all, I wish to pose the following thoughts, especially if a solipsist sympathiser declares that 'knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified'.

If it (solipsism) had some validity, wouldn't it be strange to have your thoughts on solipsism influenced by external fantasies? If these were not a product of absolute reality, for what reason would we be able to trust these delusions? When we originally stumble across the idea of solipsism, it is a result of being influenced by the physical, external world, or that is: The physical, external body and matter of the mind of philosophers. If a statement of the nature of absolute reality was ever made, it would be almost always be the product of what we listen to or observe in the physical, external world.

It seems these solipsists argue that we (materialists) cannot trust the physical universe to give us the absolute truth, yet they can presume (at least subconsciously) to trust it when they draw external thoughts and ideas from it about solipsism.

You are deriving your thoughts about absolute reality from the external, potentially false world, and there is the contradiction.

Regardless, this doesn't mean it is not true. But is it as likely as reality? I suppose you could begin by arguing that there is no evidence that a brain can contain that amount of information, whilst there is evidence the human brain can only hold so much, but the likely counter to this argument would be that given we are not in this solipsist ultimate reality, so we cannot make judgements on what 'rules' on information storage are applied there.

Untestable, unfalsifiable, but as likely as reality?

All "only myself exists" philosophies need to rely on reality being a vacuum.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But since it is only my world perhaps I made it consistent.

You went away on holiday for two weeks and came home to discover that the trees in your yard are in the same configuration as they were before you left. However, you were paying absolutely no conscious attention to the trees while you were away. What maintained their consistency?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

To put it simply, solipsism is the notion that reality exists only from, and confined to, the point of view of the particular individual who is entertaining solipsism. So that if MattusMaximus is in a bar and his eyes alight on a particularly enticing cleavage, under solipsism when he looks away, in order to appear non-lecherous, then that cleavage disappears from reality.
Idealism, on the other hand, is wise enough to retain all enticing cleavages everywhere, in existence, by constantly staring at them. God ain't stupid.
Idealism is the fidgety cross-eyed guy at the end of the bar.

Well put.

You can either have temporary cleavage, or you must invent god. Takes your pick.

~~ Paul

 

[I Ratant]

But since it is only my world perhaps I made it consistent.

.
I would say then that you're one sick puppy, but that would my solipsistic view of my creation!
I'm perverted, but not to the extent I can even imagine what evils there exist in the world in the world as I know it.

 

[I Ratant]

T... enticing cleavages ...

.
Not all cleavages are enticing.. some are distinctly off-putting.. in MY world!

 

[Starthinker]

You went away on holiday for two weeks and came home to discover that the trees in your yard are in the same configuration as they were before you left. However, you were paying absolutely no conscious attention to the trees while you were away. What maintained their consistency?

~~ Paul

Just that I expected them to.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Just that I expected them to.

Huh? What maintained their consistency?

~~ Paul

 

[dv82matt]

You went away on holiday for two weeks and came home to discover that the trees in your yard are in the same configuration as they were before you left. However, you were paying absolutely no conscious attention to the trees while you were away. What maintained their consistency?

~~ Paul

How can you be sure that consistency was maintained? Is it that the trees match your memory of them? In that case couldn't the trees be reconstructed from your memory?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How can you be sure that consistency was maintained? Is it that the trees match your memory of them? In that case couldn't the trees be reconstructed from your memory?

What memory? Does the solipsist have consciousness awareness of his memory and its inner workings? I don't think so. So how does he know that his memory isn't something other than himself, something external, some non-solipsistic?

Solipsism is based on the idea that my own awareness is the only thing I know. But that's just not enough to explain the world we see.

~~ Paul

 

[gentlehorse]

What memory? Does the solipsist have consciousness awareness of his memory and its inner workings? I don't think so. So how does he know that his memory isn't something other than himself, something external, some non-solipsistic?

He doesn't know anything any more than you or I know anything. He could, however, arrive at the conclusion that his memory isn't something other than himself by making the fewest assumptions possible.

Solipsism is based on the idea that my own awareness is the only thing I know. But that's just not enough to explain the world we see.

~~ Paul

Sure it is. It just happens to be bankrupt. We assume our way out of solipsism, assuming that there is a consistent, mind-independent universe, as it's functional, productive, and convenient to do so. We can't know that a non-solipsistic worldview is any more a reflection of "reality" than is solipsism.

 

[dv82matt]

What memory?

Well it seemed as though your example implied some method of verifying that the trees are in the same configuration. So if not from memory then how is consistency verified? How do you know that consistency is maintained if you have no method of testing it?

Does the solipsist have consciousness awareness of his memory and its inner workings? I don't think so. So how does he know that his memory isn't something other than himself, something external, some non-solipsistic?

I agree he doesn't have moment to moment awareness of the details of how memory works. His memory as he experiences it would be a part of his awareness however.

Solipsism is based on the idea that my own awareness is the only thing I know. But that's just not enough to explain the world we see.

I'm not sure what you mean. Isn't the "world we see" a subset of our awareness? Isn't it impossible by definition to know something outside of our awareness?

 

[athon]

We assume our way out of solipsism, assuming that there is a consistent, mind-independent universe, as it's functional, productive, and convenient to do so. We can't know that a non-solipsistic worldview is any more a reflection of "reality" than is solipsism.

Not quite - we assume it, because there is no reason to assume otherwise. The perceptions I have create the impression that there is an external universe. To state that this is an illusion demands all the same explanations as a materialist universe, plus one more; an explanation of why it is only an illusion. Why make that extra step when there is no reason to assume it?

Athon