David Mo
Philosopher
You are not speaking of solipsism. Solipsism claims that only the Ego exists or can be known. Nothing external to the Ego exists. Therefore "cosmic", "everyone", etc. are not solipsist concepts.
Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....
- Thread starter Fudbucker
- Start date
-
- Tags
- consciousness
You are not speaking of solipsism. Solipsism claims that only the Ego exists or can be known. Nothing external to the Ego exists. Therefore "cosmic", "everyone", etc. are not solipsist concepts.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
I don't recognise that as solipsism, although I'm happy to confess that I'm far from an expert on such matters.
Nope. I am either here as the narrator or I'm not I have no awareness when I'm not the narrator.
We all act as if we can make free choices. Whether that means we have the sort of so-called "free-will" that philosophers and others seem to like debating, that's a different question. But we do choose to take whatever decisions we prefer ... what might be influencing every aspect of those decisions is another question. So that does not negate the "material" nature of reality in any way.
As for being "morally outraged" at spree shootings or something - you do not really need the word "moral" in any descriptions like that. You just think it's seriously unacceptable for all sorts of reasons that any of us could list, and almost everyone wants to do something effective to stop most such events (though as it happens, in the USA maybe most people do not in fact want to stop such mass shootings).
If enough people think that any such human behaviour is seriously wrong, then governments and law courts are pressured to introduce laws to help prevent what are then decided to be serious crimes ... that's the state of affairs that we have arrived at after many hundreds (thousands) of years of what used to be far more unacceptable behaviour from people in any society ... but again that clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with any claims that material reality may not exist. Quite the opposite in fact, since in all such examples you are assuming the material existence of all that is involved with events such as mass shootings and people actually dying … your own examples are based upon the material existence & "reality" for all aspects of any such events.
Just by way of casual/idle non-confrontational chat – the above is not the philosophical position on solipsism per. se. By solipsism, or so-called “hard solipsism”, philosophers of the past have afaik just meant the idea that only our own conscious thoughts exist, so that external reality does not exist. So there is no specific God-claim there. However …
… in previous threads here we have discussed so-called Near Death Experiences (NDE) as examples of what various posters here (inc. Larry) were claiming as evidence of consciousness persisting indefinitely after death … it was presented in those threads as somehow continuing to exist as intelligent thinking, i.e. as if it was the aware essence of the person themselves continuing to exist as some sort of disembodied force throughout the universe … in other words a “soul”. But, after a great deal of debate in those threads it eventually turned out that this was really a God claim … what was actually being claimed was that anecdotal stories of NDE provided good evidence for consciousness, i.e. a soul, being placed into the body at birth by God! It was evidence of God, precisely because those experiences such as NDE showed that a conscious soul persisted after death of the body (a soul which could then pass to heaven).
But the result of solipsism also looks like the God-claim in another way – it appears to be the claim of an “uncaused first cause”, which is of course precisely the God-claim of theist philosophers like William Lane-Craig. To explain that – the solipsist claim is that consciousness exists without any need for a physically existing brain. It has to make that claim, because as soon as it's admitted that a physical brain is needed, then that is an admission of the need for external reality … if a brain is needed to create the consciousness, then the solipsism argument collapses. But that means solipsism is claiming that consciousness exists without any actual cause … it is again an “uncaused first cause”, and that is exactly like the basis of all God beliefs.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Well, I wonder if you read my post. What you just wrote bears no ressemblance to what I said.
David Mo
Philosopher
Oh, really? Explain that to me, please.
David Mo
Philosopher
Even though you give a correct definition of "solipsism" I'm afraid you don't understand the true implications of this concept.
First: The solipsist only considers two certainties: he exists and he has ideas. Any reference to an external reality formed from impressions is irrelevant. At the very least, it is uncertain. Any idea that he may get of people's death would be formed from his ideas and cannot be extrapolated to the real world. Therefore, he cannot be certain of his own death. Therefore, immortality is a concept that has no place in solipsistic thinking. Solipsist consciousness it is not Christian soul, because Christians believe in an immortal soul with body relations.
Second: Solipsist Ego is not God in two senses. He has not any idea of the beginning and the end of his existence and he is not the cause of anything. God knows that he is eternal, solipsist doesn’t know. Furthermore God is the first cause of everything. The solipsist believe that he is not the cause of anything external to his consciousness. Some ideas are caused by his will, others not. But his ideas are himself.
Therefore, it cannot be said that it is "exactly like the basis of all God beliefs". In some sense it is the opposite. I don't know of any religion that is based on solipsism. You do?
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Explain what? That coming up with an idea doesn't mean you can write a post-doctorate thesis about it?
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,449
Boring bait and switch. How about you point to 'free will' and 'morality' as a material object first. Otherwise, your questions do not follow from your initial statement.
Abstract human concepts/constructs exist as such, they don't have material existence however. This is kindergarten stuff.
Last edited:
David Mo
Philosopher
Explanation. I asked you to explain what you had meant and why it had nothing to do with my answer. Your new contribution does not clarify these points.
To your new question: I suppose that in order to speak on an issue, we need to deepen into it. More or less according the circumstances. Unless you want to say anything that pops into your head, risking making a fool of yourself.
Last edited:
If anyone here says that solipsism is not claiming an “uncaused first cause” (i.e. in a way similar to theists who claim God is an uncaused first cause) then they have to explain what caused the thing that they call “consciousness” … where did any “consciousness” or “thoughts” come from” … what produces any such “thoughts”?
Science has a very clear answer to that of course. Consciousness is an effect produced by the brain and the sensory system. And there is a extremely detailed and very complete description of all that in the research literature and other publications from medicine, psychology, and neuroscience … that describes in vast detail all of the cell structures of the sensory system and the brain, it describes how all of that works and how information is exchanged along neural pathways etc. If anyone wanted to read all of the published descriptions of that, it would fill many tens of thousands of pages. And that's all stuff which has been tested, repeated and verified countless times to show those descriptions are correct.
That current understanding from science adds up to an absolutely enormous amount of knowledge about the working of the brain, the sensory system and all other related parts of the human body. It may not answer every question that anyone could ever ask. And it may not yet be a universally agreed “theory” of exactly how or why we experience the effects in precisely the way that do. But it is a vast amount that is now known about how and why we experience something that we call “consciousness”.
So what then is the solipsist philosophers explanation for the cause of what we call “consciousness”? Since they claim the brain does not exist as a cause (because that would be/require external reality), where do they claim consciousness comes from? Or are they leaving it unexplained as an “uncaused first cause”?
Science has a very clear answer to that of course. Consciousness is an effect produced by the brain and the sensory system. And there is a extremely detailed and very complete description of all that in the research literature and other publications from medicine, psychology, and neuroscience … that describes in vast detail all of the cell structures of the sensory system and the brain, it describes how all of that works and how information is exchanged along neural pathways etc. If anyone wanted to read all of the published descriptions of that, it would fill many tens of thousands of pages. And that's all stuff which has been tested, repeated and verified countless times to show those descriptions are correct.
That current understanding from science adds up to an absolutely enormous amount of knowledge about the working of the brain, the sensory system and all other related parts of the human body. It may not answer every question that anyone could ever ask. And it may not yet be a universally agreed “theory” of exactly how or why we experience the effects in precisely the way that do. But it is a vast amount that is now known about how and why we experience something that we call “consciousness”.
So what then is the solipsist philosophers explanation for the cause of what we call “consciousness”? Since they claim the brain does not exist as a cause (because that would be/require external reality), where do they claim consciousness comes from? Or are they leaving it unexplained as an “uncaused first cause”?
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
Solipsism does not claim that only the observer's consciousness exists, it claims that the only thing an observer can say for sure is that his or her consciousness exists, or that the only thing an observer can prove to exist is his or her own consciousness.
Belz...
Fiend God
David, I honestly have no idea what you're talking about or what you want me to answer. Perhaps in order to get a clear answer you should ask a clear question.
On my end, things are very simple. I said that any teenager can come to solipsism as a conclusion. It's an easy thing to do once you have the basics down, which you'll get early on in college or even in late high school. What I definitely DIDN'T say is that you could write a book on the topic that'll be regarded in any way as insightful. So your response to what I said was irrelevant, and a strawman.
SusanB-M1
Incurable Optimist
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 3,766
I wish I could get quite a few posters from two other forums I go to to read that!! The trouble is, they have a sort of filter which automatically changes the words into what they want them to mean, not what they actually do.
I don't think that's right. Afaik, so called "hard solipsism" does claim that external reality does not exist - only your own thoughts exist. See the Wiki quote in the footnote.
However, even if we accept that part of solipsism which says (to quote you) "the only thing an observer can say for sure is that his or her consciousness exists" ... even if it just says that, then the whole point of saying anything like that is to express doubt about the existence of any external reality ... in which case we have to examine the case where it is suggested that reality does not exist – for which we then have to ask (as I just did) "what then is such philosophy claiming as the cause of "consciousness"? ...
... are they saying it exists without cause? If they are not saying that, then what is supposed to be the cause?
Footnote quote from Wiki -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
Solipsism (/ˈsɒlɪpsɪzəm/*(*listen); from Latin solus, meaning 'alone', and ipse, meaning 'self')[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.
Apologies for the delayed response. My work schedule is prohibitive of all but the hastiest responses, in the latter half of most weeks.
The obvious question regarding "being present" as a pure state is, if you disavow all sensory input, memory, and thought, then where (and when) are you present? Similarly, in the case of "being aware," being aware of what? Phrases such as "pure being" is sometimes used to describe such a mental state without invoking those questions.
The more subtle question is, can pure being actually be an experience? We can ask the same question in a different way: what else does or does not experience pure being? Does a thermostat experience pure being, perhaps if you disconnect its one sensory input (a thermometer)? If so... so what? That is, what's the difference between such "consciousness" and just existing as an object?
And if not... why not? What's the difference between the thermostat and you? Surely having or not having a mere material brain, a vague and perhaps not even real thing so many steps down that road from primary-ness, can't make any important difference, if it's the consciousness that's primary.
The other issue with your particular ideal monism is that it's in competition with so many others that seem to have equal footing. I mentioned Schopenhauer's concept of will (welt) as primary. Move your finger; what's the one thing you can say with certainty about that experience? Not that your finger exists; it might be mere mental illusion or "representation" ("vorstellung") that you and I happen to call a finger. Not even that you exist. The one certain thing is that it moved because you willed it. Such thinking convinced Schopenhauer that will is the monad, the primary thing that really exists. (This is not a solipsism; the monad isn't individual will, it's universal will. You cannot will yourself through a wall because the wall's will resists that result.) Electromagnetism and gravity are manifestations of will, and so forth.
It was studying such ideas that convinced me that all ideal monisms are arbitrary, more or less interchangeable, and ultimately tautological. Will is primary. Change is primary. God is primary. Oneness is primary. Consciousness is primary. Go back far enough, and you can find philosophers arguing about whether air is primary, or if it's water instead. The game is, you claim everything is a duck, and then you classify anything that seems a lot like a duck (such as ducks) as the true reality; things that are somewhat like a duck (swans, geese, clay pigeons, boats, raincoats, down comforters, anything that's in a row, quarks) as partly real but distorted by our imperfect perceptions, but being important clues pointing to the true duck nature of all things; and anything that seems unlike a duck (such as the stars, or medieval agrarian history except for the parts about ducks) as mental illusion.
This is even true of materialism. The difference is that with the latter, the part where you try to describe everything as different varieties of duck seems to be a lot less work.