Is Solipsism as likely as Reality?

[athon]

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?

By reason, there has to be events occurring external to one's awareness. For example, something has to be responsible for the perception of change. As Paul said, we go away for a week and the grass has grown - since I wasn't conscious of this change in between, something external to my awareness dictated that difference. Even if it is in my own head, something keeps track of those differences.

Athon

 

[dv82matt]

By reason, there has to be events occurring external to one's awareness. For example, something has to be responsible for the perception of change. As Paul said, we go away for a week and the grass has grown - since I wasn't conscious of this change in between, something external to my awareness dictated that difference. Even if it is in my own head, something keeps track of those differences.

Athon

I don't think it's watertight (consciousness being somewhat fluid and all) but personally I'd agree with this.
I suppose that by this:

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 must have really meant:

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

 

[Malerin]

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.

The explanation would be that the consistenty of the world is maintained unconsciously. If this isn't satisying to you, try concentrating on maintaining the consistency of your heart beat or digestive system. Your body is maintained by a myraid of unconscious processes. Just take it to the next level to include all of reality.

 

[paximperium]

The explanation would be that the consistenty of the world is maintained unconsciously. If this isn't satisying to you, try concentrating on maintaining the consistency of your heart beat or digestive system. Your body is maintained by a myraid of unconscious processes. Just take it to the next level to include all of reality.

So you are using a materialistic statement about human brain function for "unconscious" physical processes to justify your non-materialist magic crap?

 

[paximperium]

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

Let me play solipsist.
The tree is actually not consistent, you just believe it is.

An example would be Korsakoff's Syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korsakoff's_syndrome

In this encephalopathy, the hallmark symptom is confabulation to compensate for amnesia. Patient's literary make up memories on the fly to compensate for gaps in their own real memories.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

The explanation would be that the consistenty of the world is maintained unconsciously. If this isn't satisying to you, try concentrating on maintaining the consistency of your heart beat or digestive system. Your body is maintained by a myraid of unconscious processes. Just take it to the next level to include all of reality.

So you are using a materialistic statement about human brain function for "unconscious" physical processes to justify your non-materialist magic crap?

The funny thing is that in spite of all the whining about how consciousness must be independent of physiology, even immaterialists must admit that they are slaves to their environment and slaves to their brains.

Right now you're sitting in front of your computer and are comfortable for the most part. After an hour or so, you'd still be relatively comfortable. A few more hours though and your stomach might start doing strange things, even though you might not want it to. A few more hours and your bladder will begin disobediently overriding what your consciousness wants to do.

Fast forward 12 hours and you'll be sitting in your own urine, hungry as hell, rather thirsty, and probably aching and stiff all over. But hey, it's all in your head, right?

 

[Malerin]

Untestable, unfalsifiable, but as likely as reality?

I think you mean "as likely as other models of reality". Reality isn't likely, it just is, regardless of whatever claims we make or evidence we think we have.

Is solipsism more or less likely than any other theory of reality? Impossible to say. Since the evidence from our senses is compatible with solipsism, theism, and materialism, there's no evidence for or against solipsism. We take it as a matter of faith that other people have a real existence outside our mind.

 

[Malerin]

The funny thing is that in spite of all the whining about how consciousness must be independent of physiology, even immaterialists must admit that they are slaves to their environment and slaves to their brains.

Right now you're sitting in front of your computer and are comfortable for the most part. After an hour or so, you'd still be relatively comfortable. A few more hours though and your stomach might start doing strange things, even though you might not want it to. A few more hours and your bladder will begin disobediently overriding what your consciousness wants to do.

Fast forward 12 hours and you'll be sitting in your own urine, hungry as hell, rather thirsty, and probably aching and stiff all over. But hey, it's all in your head, right?

You reliaze all that is consistent with idealism, theism, and solipsism, right?

 

[RandFan]

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.

I couldn't agree more. That said, it seems to me, that it takes special pleading to make an idealistic argument and then stop before you get to solipsism. If not special pleading then at least inconsistency. If you can't prove the real world then you sure as hell can't prove anyone else. I think most people don't follow through with their logic. They simply grasp the ideas that support their preconceptions. Don't care for solipsism? Cool, join the rest of us in the real world then.

 

[RandFan]

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

If I'm not on your ignore list, what are you?

I don't know if I'm actually a materialist. I think I'm more of an apatheist. I don't really care. I only care that the laws of physics are consistent and that matter behaves as if it is in fact material.

 

[RandFan]

I can't edit my posts. I don't know why.

In any event, I want to ammend that. I don't care how matter behaves I only want to understand how it does behave. I only want to know, as well as I can, the truth.

I'd also like to avoid epistemological nightmares.

 

[paximperium]

Is solipsism more or less likely than any other theory of reality? Impossible to say. Since the evidence from our senses is compatible with solipsism, theism, and materialism, there's no evidence for or against solipsism. We take it as a matter of faith that other people have a real existence outside our mind.

Nope, nothing more than special pleading and a poor attempt at equivocation from Malerin.

Materialist relies on sense-data to form a model of reality and rely on their sense data to confirm their models. It is limited and we take those limitations into account. Materialism/Naturalism assumes a causal and consistent world. If something completely uncaused occurs(eg. a mountain appears over Moscow and flies to Pluto or I can sudden fly with my fart), we will reassess whether our data or model is flawed. No faith involved at all.

Solipcist/Theist/Idealist/Woo-ist relies on sense-data to form a model of reality but throw in a completely useless "mind"/magic/god concept into the mix as well to explain the data input. They essentially make up some extraneous unknown to explain the unknown.

Malerin is attempting to equate his sad little belief as somehow equal to materialism which has pushed the world and humanity forward while sad woo-ist sit in their caves and make up imaginary magic process to explain away things they don't understand.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I think you mean "as likely as other models of reality". Reality isn't likely, it just is, regardless of whatever claims we make or evidence we think we have.

From what I've read on this thread, reality isn't what it used to be.

Is solipsism more or less likely than any other theory of reality? Impossible to say. Since the evidence from our senses is compatible with solipsism, theism, and materialism, there's no evidence for or against solipsism. We take it as a matter of faith that other people have a real existence outside our mind.

I think you are misusing the word theory, though probably not intentionally. These concepts & philosophical notions which we are discussing are not theoretical in any scientific sense. As you mentioned, there is no manner in which we could possibly ever test the validity of a solipsist's (or an idealist's) claims about reality. Thus, those claims are, by definition, unscientific in nature.

I would submit, however, that the materialist notion of reality is more consistent with the modern scientific method than anything else mentioned here. Of course, modern science (methodogical naturalism) doesn't necessarily exclude a Matrix or Brain-in-a-vat style of reality, just as it doesn't exclude the possible existence of an all-powerful god, but neither does modern science require these things. They are merely metaphysical speculations that we choose to impose upon the reality we observe around us. And, as such, I view them as unnecessary additions to an otherwise astonishing reality - why make crap up about the universe when it is already so damned cool on its own merits?

At least, that's my $0.02 worth on the matter.

 

[Correa Neto]

Just expecting Lifegazer to pop in to existence...

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

It's two mechanisms either way: (1) the person's consciousness; (2) whatever maintains the consistency of the external world.

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.

See above.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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?

Oh, there is memory somewhere. It's just not part of the solipsist's consciousness, so he can't claim his consciousness is all there is.

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?

Assuming that the solipsist's feeling of remembering things is real and not an illusion, then phenomenal experience is not enough to explain the world, because it does not support whatever makes the world consistent.

Paul must have really meant:

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

The very thing, yes.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The explanation would be that the consistenty of the world is maintained unconsciously. If this isn't satisying to you, try concentrating on maintaining the consistency of your heart beat or digestive system. Your body is maintained by a myraid of unconscious processes. Just take it to the next level to include all of reality.

So the proposal that the world has a mental foundation is supported by the existence of nonconscious mechanisms. That's fairly alanic.

I understand your point: The metamind is not something that individuals can experience.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Let me play solipsist.
The tree is actually not consistent, you just believe it is.

An example would be Korsakoff's Syndrome.

So the solipsist is living with a pervasive case of amnesia and just making crap up as he goes along. Does that work ...

I think so. It's pervasive amnesia coupled with constant deja vu.

~~ Paul

 

[paximperium]

So the solipsist is living with a pervasive case of amnesia and just making crap up as he goes along. Does that work ...

I think so. It's pervasive amnesia coupled with constant deja vu.

~~ Paul

Sounds just like solipsism to me.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If I'm not on your ignore list, what are you?

I don't know if I'm actually a materialist. I think I'm more of an apatheist. I don't really care. I only care that the laws of physics are consistent and that matter behaves as if it is in fact material.

I try to avoid metaphysical beliefs as much as possible, since I think it's a hopeless enterprise. But I enjoy these conversations, so I participate. I tend to argue on the physicalist side, partly because I don't understand what idealists are on about, and partly because I think idealism and physicalism are equivalent except for terminology. Heck, it's fun!

~~ Paul