Arguments against (or for) Solipsism

[thekaje]

Are you saying that I'm inventing an external, fantastic source of my sensation?

Because while that's true (brain in a vat requires a vat), it's not really relevant. The truth is that you're only really certain of one thing--the fact that there is thinking that you are experiencing.

So while specific "other possibilities" can be dismissed practically on the grounds that there's no evidence of them, the point still stands: there is no certainty.

And that is my only point. That is the foundation of the modern scientific method.

 

[thekaje]

Yes but you don't need to prove something doesn't exist in order to say it does not exist.

See, cuz I'm askin you to prove that something does exist. Not that something does not exist.

 

[potatokiosk]

I know my dreams are entirely a product of my mind, and reality seems to be very different from dreaming, so that makes solipsism seem unlikely. Also if I forget something and then am reminded of it I never notice any changes. And my preconceived notions often turn out to be wrong no matter how sure I was about them.

 

[thekaje]

Maybe reality and dreaming are just different forms of dreaming.

This is what I'm talking about when I talk about the "usefulness" of "solipsism". It's important to have intellectual sophistication, maturity, and honesty to be able to step back and recognize the limitations of your knowledge, as well as (in GENERAL, not specifically) the infinite possible forms of reality and of the world.

Also, you DON'T know that dreams are entirely a product of your mind. You can make a case for it with varying levels of cogency, but the essence of scientific inquiry is the realization that other possibilities exist. What you know is that all available evidence points to dreams being entirely a product of your mind.

 

[Orange Seeds]

I'm going to try and step back a bit.

First of all you are arguing two things simultaneously which is leading to a lot of confusion.

First: "I am actually asking for certainty that [the universe] DOES exist. And there is none."

Second: "This is what I'm talking about when I talk about the "usefulness" of "solipsism". It's important to have intellectual sophistication, maturity, and honesty to be able to step back and recognize the limitations of your knowledge, as well as (in GENERAL, not specifically) the infinite possible forms of reality and of the world"

and thirdly the thread is about proving or disproving solipsism which adds further confusion.

I was arguing more towards the existence of solipsism as a valid alternative to science being absurd. Others were more focused on the second argument, i touched that one as well.

What i and others have been trying to make coherent is that you don't need certainty of something in order to claim it exists. This is the basis of ALL modern thought. There are no practical benefits from claiming otherwise which is why i brought up Russell's Teapot. I can be certain of nothing and this has no effect on anything. Kierkegaard's critique of the 'Cogito' argument is very important because it shows how foolish it is to doubt to ones one existence(As you still presuppose the 'I' and the 'think' as well; meaning you clarify nothing.)

I brought up Occam's Razor and all that because the universe appears to exist without the added claim that I invented it(solipsism) which makes it irrelevant.

Finally, i have to add that my earlier statement was fine grammatically and your statement that something can exist without evidence is why this rather drear conversation has continued for so long. Tell me one thing that that know exists even though you have no evidence for it. If you can do that you win the thread.

There is proof of x > x exists
if we allow: There is no proof of x > x can exist
then everything is possible and knowledge is non-existent
so we say: There is no proof of x > x does not exist

There is no proof of solipsism > solipsism does not exist

 

[thekaje]

Tell me one thing that that know exists even though you have no evidence for it.

Well, that's not my point, so I'm not sure why I would argue that.

Now, YOUR point is that "you don't need certainty of something in order to claim it exists."

I'm okay with that.

The point of solipsism is the lack of certainty.

To say, "there is no proof of something and therefore it does not exist" is a gross misunderstanding of Russell's Teapot and everything else. Russell's Teapot essentially states that you cannot prove a negative: e.g., that the burden of proof is on the proponents of God, not His detractors. Russell's Teapot does not rule out the possibility of God; it claims that God has not been proven, and it is up to those who claim His existence to prove it.

Any scientist will say that you must work with the evidence, but you should always be mindful of the possibility that your assumptions are invalid and new evidence might be introduced.

Hence, if your brain were pulled out of the vat, you would realize you were a brain in a vat. New evidence.

Realizing that there is no CERTAINTY in anything but your own thoughts and sensations is the entirety of the solipsistic principle.

 

[warpus]

Maybe reality and dreaming are just different forms of dreaming.

This is what I'm talking about when I talk about the "usefulness" of "solipsism". It's important to have intellectual sophistication, maturity, and honesty to be able to step back and recognize the limitations of your knowledge, as well as (in GENERAL, not specifically) the infinite possible forms of reality and of the world.

Yeah, but not too many people would actually go out on a limb and say that the ideas espoused by solipsism are actually a valid representation of reality.

I mean, it's a cool thing to think about, and it gives us insights into a whole bunch of interesting stuff, but saying "It can't be disproved, so it *could* be true" is kind of dishonest, because there's an infinite amount of axioms that can't be disproved, and nobody in their right mind would argue that invisible bears exist.

 

[thekaje]

I mean, it's a cool thing to think about, and it gives us insights into a whole bunch of interesting stuff, but saying "It can't be disproved, so it *could* be true" is kind of dishonest, because there's an infinite amount of axioms that can't be disproved, and nobody in their right mind would argue that invisible bears exist.

Well, you seem to agree with my actual point. So that's good enough, I guess.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm saying that there is no real proof either way. You cannot prove that reality is real, because there's no foundation for anything. Like with anything else (morality, etc), you have to make some kind of fundamental assumption.

I'm speaking in general and not specifically. But really, the invisible bears thing is not that unreasonable. Invisible bears probably don't exist and can be assumed not to exist, but you never know. That is scientific modesty. Scientific modesty is an outgrowth of and REQUIRES solipsism as its intellectual foundation.

 

[warpus]

Invisible bears probably don't exist and can be assumed not to exist, but you never know.

Man, you made my day with that quote. Thanks

 

[thekaje]

Well, it's easier to laugh than it is to think.