Is Solipsism as likely as Reality?

[Frozenwolf150]

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

Yes, I realize that. As well as with all the possibilites Kevin Lowe named in this post:

Mere possibility is cheap. Anything's possible. It's possible I'm a crab dreaming it's a wallaby dreaming it's a brain in a vat being fooled by a Cartesian demon who is in turn being fooled by God.

Evidence, on the other hand, is worth something.

As well as an infinite number of others. My point however had nothing to do with your stupid little alternate models of reality, and everything to do with the equally stupid idea that consciousness is separate from brain physiology. Then again, I'm basing my arguments on the assumption that you find wetting yourself to be unpleasant and would therefore try to avoid it. If it turns out my premise is false, well there goes my whole argument, yet I still end up in better shape regardless.

 

[RandFan]

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

Got it. And here I thought one had to be something even if I didn't care myself.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Some thoughts:

If perceptions of reality is taken on faith, the second person in this conversation is justified.

Person 1:The First World War really happened

Person 2: You base that on faith, as the Universe may have been created 10 seconds ago along with all your memories.

Second of all, If I hammer my fingers away on the keyboard, I have a current and constant thought of what I wish to appear on the screen. If suddenly the phrase 'I picked up a Parcwl' appears at the same time as I was thinking 'I picked up a Parcel', this appears to be inconsistent with my chain of thought. There has to be a reason as to why this has happened. The likely outcome is that my finger has slipped and pressed down on the wrong key. Is this not evidence that the material and the mind are two different things?

Please point out if (and I'm sure they are) my arguments are somewhat flawed.

 

[Beerina]

What if external reality really existed (and that was all that existed), but that other people (and higher animals) were played by automata and were not actually conscious.

Would that be solipsism?

 

[dv82matt]

Some thoughts:

If perceptions of reality is taken on faith, the second person in this conversation is justified.

Person 1:The First World War really happened

Person 2: You base that on faith, as the Universe may have been created 10 seconds ago along with all your memories.

Second of all, If I hammer my fingers away on the keyboard, I have a current and constant thought of what I wish to appear on the screen. If suddenly the phrase 'I picked up a Parcwl' appears at the same time as I was thinking 'I picked up a Parcel', this appears to be inconsistent with my chain of thought. There has to be a reason as to why this has happened. The likely outcome is that my finger has slipped and pressed down on the wrong key. Is this not evidence that the material and the mind are two different things?

Please point out if (and I'm sure they are) my arguments are somewhat flawed.

I think you are making essentially the same point as Paul.

Assuming we assume our way our of radical solopsism the argument does indicate that conscious experience cannot be all there is.

The problem, as I see it, is that that is not the point being argued by most idealists. The argument is between "mind" (whether conscious or not) and "material" so consciousness need not enter into it.

What if external reality really existed (and that was all that existed), but that other people (and higher animals) were played by automata and were not actually conscious.

Would that be solipsism?

That would be a kind of materialism. But the example illuminates that the distinction is mostly a semantic one.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

We take it as a matter of faith that other people have a real existence outside our mind.

Surely you therefore take the belief that you once had the above thought as a matter of faith, as the Universe may have been created 5 seconds ago, with all your memories and the holes in your socks?

If our existence was hypothetically one lucid dream, and I could create or vanish objects at will, would I not be justified in saying that that is evidence that the external world is the sum total of my thoughts?

 

[Iconoclast08]

Nagel

I think Thomas Nagel makes a good point in his book The Last Word when he states that the extreme subjectivists/relativists/solipsists really don't have to think rigorously or take any real risks in the sense that they can just repeat the same tripe to speciously disarm rational responses.

I once had a high school English teacher who lots of students thought was "brilliant" because nobody could "disprove" that his podium was really a giraffe. All he really did, though, was use imaginative disconnects to refute sensible responses. Children can do this.

"Mr. X, why doesn't it have spots?"

"Well, Jim, I painted it black."

And it got a lot more creative and wacky.