Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....

[David Mo]

All that that you have is a claim from real existing people (philosophers, and people here who are impressed by philosophy), who claim that perhaps only their own thoughts exist ...

I would like you to give the name of a philosopher, preferably from the Modern Age, who said that reality outside the mind does not exist. Honestly, I don't know any. Or at least none that have relevance in the history of philosophy.

I am afraid you have invented a non-existent enemy.

I'm happy to reply on the other points, but I think the answer to the first highlighted point makes all other answers redundant, so I can keep this fairly short by just answering that one –

- as soon as you admit the need for a “brain” then you admit the need for external reality … i.e. it's something which you have then agreed to as existing separately as the cause of what you call your "conscious thoughts".

Please do not say that the "brain" is not real either, because then you will just be asked where the brain came from and what caused that to be a thing producing any "conscious thoughts". And keep in mind here that we/science are not claiming a "proof" of reality ... all we can ever talk about (any of us) is what appears to be the most reasonable answer that fits best with anything we can detect as "evidence" ... we are just arguing about which is the most convincing explanation, either the scientific one or else the philosophical solipsist-type one.

You have not understood that one thing is what Cheetah and I think, and another is what we say the hypothetical solipsist thinks.

At least I am not a solipsist - and I think Cheetah neither. I think an outside world exists. But one thing is to believe and another to prove it to the hypothetical solipsist. I can't do the latter. My belief, therefore, is based on other philosophical reasons that are not strictly logical.

 

[IanS]

I apologize, but I will not reply to the comments one by one. You have written too many and I cannot go into all of them in detail. I'll try to explain what I'm doing. I thank Cheetah for clarifying a few things about my comments that I no longer need to clarify.

I'm not defending the position of the solipsist, which is not mine.
I'm trying to expose the solipsist position as correctly as I can. I cannot take it to its ultimate consequences because I do not know of any modern philosopher who is a solipsist, but I try to present what is commonly understood as solipsism as a logical problem and its implications.

Actually you have been defending the position of “the solipsist” (whether you yourself believe the solipsist claims to be true or not). And I think everyone here can see that very clearly.

However, leaving that aside - if you do not actually think the solipsist idea is correct, then presumably that can only logically mean that you think there are better and more persuasive reasons to believe that the world around us is real. But that is exactly the position your opponents take as well – we are not claiming a proof that solipsist unreality is impossible … we are just saying that the evidence is better explained by a world of reality & not a world of solipsism.

I have also analysed the criticisms of solipsism that have been made here. They don't seem right to me. All of them start from the belief that impressions are impressions of real facts, which is precisely what the solipsist questions.

Your next point is really your first substantive point, where you say “ … the criticisms of solipsism ...all of them start from the belief that impressions are impressions of real facts,...”. Quite right, the criticisms do start from a belief that your sensory system is detecting real objects and real events, and sending electrochemical information about that to the brain. That has to be the starting point for all of us, inc. any philosophers who propose solipsism.

It has to be your own starting point too. That's true because from a time even before the first philosopher ever thought of any such idea as solipsism, he himself, everyone around him, everyone before him, and even all animals and plants that ever lived, all had that sensory detection of reality before anyone later claimed that it might all be an unreal illusion … the first impression is always of reality.

That means there is a burden of proof upon any philosopher who later comes along and claims the world is not actually real. They have to show how anyones thoughts can occur without the reality of a brain & a sensory system (or any other equivalent detection system).

The only exception to that is if you say no philosophers ever existed, in fact nothing has ever existed, except for your own disembodied mind (i.e. David Mo's own mind, since you would be the one making this argument), so that you claim only your own thoughts actually exist and everything else is an illusion. But if you make that claim, then you still must explain how you are able to have any such thoughts at all without a brain?

Why do you have to answer that question? Well the reason is that you yourself are demanding it! How are you demanding it? Well, if all that exists is your own thoughts, then all the posts here are just thoughts occurring in your mind, but those thoughts (your own thoughts) are insisting here that you do need to provide an explanation! IOW – in that scenario where only your own thoughts exist, it is your own thoughts themselves that are constantly claiming that you must explain your own claims – how do your thoughts occur without any real mechanism such as a brain and sensory system?

OK, since you think my replies have been too long with too many different points (and I agree they often are too long), I will end this reply at that stage before making any comment on the remaining parts of your post.

 

[IanS]

I would like you to give the name of a philosopher, preferably from the Modern Age, who said that reality outside the mind does not exist. Honestly, I don't know any. Or at least none that have relevance in the history of philosophy.

I am afraid you have invented a non-existent enemy.



You have not understood that one thing is what Cheetah and I think, and another is what we say the hypothetical solipsist thinks.

At least I am not a solipsist - and I think Cheetah neither. I think an outside world exists. But one thing is to believe and another to prove it to the hypothetical solipsist. I can't do the latter. My belief, therefore, is based on other philosophical reasons that are not strictly logical.

How many times do we have to ask you to stop demanding a "proof"?

How many times do we have to keep explaining why current science (e.g. from quantum field theory) shows that a "proof" is probably not possible for anything in this universe?

We are never talking about proof. We only ever talking about what can be honestly and reasonably shown as credible evidence for anything.

On your other point - we are not claiming that you or Cheetah must believe solipsist unreality is a fact ... we are arguing that you are wrong to present the claim of solipsist-unreality as an unassailable position, as if it cannot be shown to be a weak and unconvincing argument.

 

[David Mo]

To IanS:

I find difficult to understand what's going on in your head/mind.
When I say that your arguments against solipsism are not correct it doesn’t mean that I defend solipsism. You speak of "your own disembodied mind" as if I believed such a thing. That is ridiculous. I have said many times that I don’t support solipsism.
Either you stop ignoring my writing or our discussion is over.

I also don’t understand why you speak of philosophers who defend solipsism if you are incapable of quoting a single one. Your stubbornness in repeating the same thing over and over again, even if the opposite has been shown, begins to be abusive.

Your next point is really your first substantive point, where you say “ … the criticisms of solipsism ...all of them start from the belief that impressions are impressions of real facts,...”. Quite right, the criticisms do start from a belief that your sensory system is detecting real objects and real events, and sending electrochemical information about that to the brain. That has to be the starting point for all of us, inc. any philosophers who propose solipsism.

It has to be your own starting point too.

Honestly, I don't know where you're going anymore. I don't know if you think I'm a solipsist or that I share your arguments against solipsism. Sometimes you say one thing, sometimes another. Well, neither of them are true.
I am neither a solipsist nor do I share with you that the starting point of criticism of solipsism is that our belief in the real world is an evidence in itself. The solipsist cares little that we believe one thing or another. He wants us to prove it. My own argument is different.

 

[ynot]

The solipsist cares little that we believe one thing or another. He wants us to prove it.

That makes no sense if “we” and “us” are merely figments of the solipsist’s consciousness that creates and determines everything the imaginary “we” and “us” believes and does.

 

[Cheetah]

That makes no sense if “we” and “us” are merely figments of the solipsist’s consciousness that creates and determines everything the imaginary “we” and “us” believes and does.

That makes no sense.
Seems you didn't read the last few posts, maybe start around #1124 or even earlier if you still don't understand.

 

[David Mo]

That makes no sense if “we” and “us” are merely figments of the solipsist’s consciousness that creates and determines everything the imaginary “we” and “us” believes and does.

Why not? It depends of the meaning of "figments" or "creates". It would be more appropriated to say that ideas and impressions happen in the mind. Accordint the solipsist. The same way that matter happens in the Universe. According materialism. You cannot explain the origin of matter. The solipsist cannot explain the origin of mind. It exists.

 

[IanS]

To IanS:

I find difficult to understand what's going on in your head/mind.
When I say that your arguments against solipsism are not correct it doesn’t mean that I defend solipsism. You speak of "your own disembodied mind" as if I believed such a thing. That is ridiculous. I have said many times that I don’t support solipsism.
Either you stop ignoring my writing or our discussion is over.

I also don’t understand why you speak of philosophers who defend solipsism if you are incapable of quoting a single one. Your stubbornness in repeating the same thing over and over again, even if the opposite has been shown, begins to be abusive.

Honestly, I don't know where you're going anymore. I don't know if you think I'm a solipsist or that I share your arguments against solipsism. Sometimes you say one thing, sometimes another. Well, neither of them are true.
I am neither a solipsist nor do I share with you that the starting point of criticism of solipsism is that our belief in the real world is an evidence in itself. The solipsist cares little that we believe one thing or another. He wants us to prove it. My own argument is different.

You have been arguing in support of the solipsist case all the way through this thread, and also through previous threads. So do not keep telling us that you are not a solipsist. It does not matter whether or not you say that you personally do not believe the world is unreal - the plain fact is that in all these threads you have been claiming that the idea of solipsist-unreality is an unassailable argument which you keep saying cannot be "disproved" ...

.... you even used that same claim again when you just said "he wants us to prove it" (to prove that a claim of solipsism is untrue) ... even though everyone here has repeatedly explained to you that it's not actually possible to "prove" anything ... we cannot even "prove" evolution is true! (we can show that all genuine evidence supports it's truth .... but a literal proof is impossible) ... and yet you keep returning to that same demand that we must produce a proof ...

... that seems to be your constant problem ... you are unable or unwilling to grasp the fact that as far a we can tell from all current science (e.g. from QM/QFT), absolute proof is impossible for anything.

You have been presenting solipsism in these threads as an unassailable argument that cannot be shown to be flawed or wrong. But I have shown you in detail why you are wrong to do that, and shown why solipsist claims are very clearly flawed and very assailable indeed. And to repeat that explanation, in case you have conveniently forgotten since just the last post above -

1. if you claim solipsism may be true, or claim that it's an unassailable argument, or claim any sort of support on it's behalf, then you really must (1) explain how any conscious thoughts can arise without any physical cause such as a brain. If you cannot do that, then you are left in the utterly hopeless position of having no credible explanation for how even the most basic aspect of any solipsism-claim could possibly be true. And (2) you must also explain why, if everything occurs in one single solipsist mind, so that all the posts here can only be existing in that one-&-only solipsist mind, why all these posts here in your own single mind are constantly arguing against solipsism and constantly demanding that you do justify the solipsist claim of thoughts without any physical brain.

If you, or solipsism, cannot give a credible answer to those two questions, then your solipsism is not merely far from unassailable, it's in the position of having no credibility left whatsoever - it's completely unable to explain or justify even the most basic element of it's own claim of unreality.

I won't bother to ask you to answer those two questions here again, because you have been asked at least 15 times already, and failed ever to produce a credible answer.

And that's really the end of the matter, because without those answers, you are left in the position of being entirely unable to justify or explain in any way the claim of unreality called "solipsism".

 

[IanS]

That makes no sense if “we” and “us” are merely figments of the solipsist’s consciousness that creates and determines everything the imaginary “we” and “us” believes and does.

That makes no sense.
Seems you didn't read the last few posts, maybe start around #1124 or even earlier if you still don't understand.

Then he (the solipsist mind) is demanding that he himself must “prove” it!

That is – if you are saying that the “we” and “us” are just figments in the imagination of a solipsist mind, then you are now claiming that the same solipsist mind is the one demanding the proof from itself!

And that's exactly what I have put to you 15 times or more – if all that exists are thoughts in a single solipsist mind, then all the posts here are also just from that same solipsist mind, in which case it is the solipsist's own mind that is demanding that it itself must prove that no "we" or "us" exists! … and that is the very definition of a monumental self-contradiction in any claim of solipsism.

 

[Cheetah]

You have been arguing in support of the solipsist case all the way through this thread, and also through previous threads. So do not keep telling us that you are not a solipsist. It does not matter whether or not you say that you personally do not believe the world is unreal...

If I had hair on my head I'd be yanking it out.

It's like a logic puzzle, a thought experiment, a hypothetical.

It feels like we cannot get to discussing the logic because the puzzle has to be explained over and over and over and over and over.....
David's role in this was obvious way back in the thread, see post #894 and #911. This is becoming a mystery to me as well.

I'm going to reply to a previous post of yours, hang on.

 

[Cheetah]

All you have to accept is that the fact that you think and that all your experiences are secondhand and not real.

That should be "assume".

No, it really should not.

Yes it is

Then would you please explain how you are capable of experiencing something without it happening in your mind, it makes no sense to me.

 

[Darat]

Then would you please explain how you are capable of experiencing something without it happening in your mind, it makes no sense to me.

That's because solpolism doesn't make sense.

But not sure why this is such a hard thing for some folk to grasp.

When the solpolist says "I think therefore I am" - they are assuming that what they experience is "real thought", "real ideas", that they are in fact experiencing anything. They have no way to judge if what they are experiencing is actually "real experience". "You" could simply be an idea of a person the actual solpolist is thinking about.

Remember the reason the solpolist was brought into the conversation was the claim that LarryS made that the only thing we can know without assumptions is our "internal experiences". But to decide that what we experience is "real" is just as much an assumption as a realist makes i.e. assuming the world exists without you experiencing it. There is no starting point in any model of reality that doesn't start with an assumption.

 

[Cheetah]

… what is happening is that you have a sensory system that is exchanging electrochemical processes back and forth to the brain, and the brain is creating an impression of that very real input from the sensory system. That's what I think you are calling your “experience”.

Yes, you experience that impression.

But as far as any of us can honestly tell, that “experience” created by the functioning of the brain, is dependent entirely upon real input from a real sensory system which is detecting a real world around us.

That is not true at all. What you experience excludes the vast majority of the input gathered by your senses. It is also a highly processed, best guess estimate of the input.
I have looked for something in its usual place and found it missing, after looking everywhere else I could think of, I went back to it's usual spot and there it was, all along. I must have seen it the first time, why did I not experience it?
Furthermore a person can also experience a dream or hallucination during which they are totally unaware of it's complete and utter disconnect from what their senses are really receiving.
Do you accept this?

When you say “If you can think you must have a mind, no doubt about it” … no, actually I do not quite agree with that either. And I think we should all retain an element of doubt or skepticism about that.
Just because something seems inescapably true, or seems to be “self evident”, we have learned in science, and even more clearly in maths, that you should avoid ever thinking thinking like that, as if to tell yourself that anything is a certainty without actual “proof”.

What does a mind do IansS?
Does it not think? Can any thinking thing not be called a mind? How would you go about thinking without a mind? If you had a mind that could not think, would it still be a mind?

OK, the last of your 3 points was to say “Everything you experience happens in your mind” … well again, No! Actually, not. You cannot say that everything you experience happens within your mind, because those “things” that you “experience” as thoughts in your mind, almost certainly all occur in reality outside of your mind/brain … what's happening in your mind/brain is only that you are re-creating an impression or sensation of that external reality.

This was covered by me above but I wanted to add:
You contradict yourself, your own words concerning experience was "the brain is creating an impression".
So you already admitted that all that you experience happens in your mind, why the sudden turnabout?

It does not matter whether your "experiences" correspond with "reality" or not, it is still happening in your mind. This is the most basic of logical failures. What is your point?

 

[Cheetah]

That's because solpolism doesn't make sense.

What??? This has nothing to do with solipsism, it is a scientific fact.
Why do some people find this concept so hard to grasp?

Really, I would like to know: "please explain how you are capable of experiencing something without it happening in your mind?"

 

[Darat]

What??? This has nothing to do with solipsism, it is a scientific fact.
Why do some people find this concept so hard to grasp?

Really, I would like to know: "please explain how you are capable of experiencing something without it happening in your mind?"

We seem to have chased each other down the rabbit hole, I have no idea what you are going on about now!

I thought this side shot came from here:

Google "Epistemological solipsism".

All you have to accept is that the fact that you think and that all your experiences are secondhand and not real, if you can do that it can make sense, if not, it does not.
Of course me and everyone else, apart from possibly one poster, think solipsism is nonsense, but I understand the point of view intellectually. I thought David Mo explained things very nicely.

I said that should really be "assume" - as that's what you are doing if you "accept" that "you think" is real. I think it is important in this discussion to keep the assumptions folk are making on the table all the time as this again goes back to LarryS's original claim that "accepting" that "you think" is not making any assumptions. It is in fact making the same bloody big assumption he claims the "realist" makes i.e. that something is "real" based on your own personal "experience".

 

[Cheetah]

I still don't understand.
Surely if you are thinking, you must be thinking otherwise you wouldn't even know that you were thinking.
What am I assuming?
How can thinking not be real if it happens?

 

[Darat]

I still don't understand.
Surely if you are thinking, you must be thinking otherwise you wouldn't even know that you were thinking.
What am I assuming?
How can thinking not be real if it happens?

As an analogy - what can a sunrise be if it is not a sunrise?

That we call something a word does not make it so.

What you think of thinking may not be "real" thinking, for instance you could be an idea of a poster called Cheetah in the mind of the solpolist.

(ETA: Keep in mind ( ) that we are not talking about reality here - we are talking about the fantasy of solpolism. Of course you know you think, as I do, don't as others do and assume my argument is my stance, it is merely to demonstrate the assumption LarryS makes.).)

 

[Cheetah]

Solipsists and materialists and realists would all agree that if they were thinking they must have a mind and their mind and thinking are real.
You disagree with all three.
Is there a philosophical term for your stance? I've never heard of it.

 

[Cheetah]

What you think of thinking may not be "real" thinking, for instance you could be an idea of a poster called Cheetah in the mind of the solpolist.

OK, I get you now.

But then I would not be thinking. I would not even be a person, I won't have a mind, I would be a figment of a solipsists imagination.
I am taking from a first person perspective, a figment cannot have that.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

OK, I get you now.

But then I would not be thinking. I would not even be a person, I won't have a mind, I would be a figment of a solipsists imagination.
I am taking from a first person perspective, a figment cannot have that.

But how would you know that? In this kind of solipsist world, how would a thinking person distinguish itself from a perfectly simulated figment that doesn't realize it isn't thinking?