What Mythology is Subjectively Better

[Timsup2nothin]

It's rather easy. Since other things exist, it means that other things aside the mind of the said human exist.

Asserting over and over isn't really much of a proof. More in the nature of 'blustering'.

Producing assertions that can't be disproved is easy. Some are more useful than others. Producing an independent statement of fact might be impossible.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

As said above, I simply pointed to the problem with your reasoning (you can't put on the same footing mythology and science, for the obvious fact that science WORKS and you can BUILD THINGS based on its rules, while mythology doesn't and is just imaginary).

You're the one who try to pick a fight about it instead of just thinking about the point made. And then blame me for it.

If you make a point I'll think about it. I suggest that if you start from the beginning of the conversation and actually catch up even you might be able to contribute something.

 

[gay_Aleks]

It exists, but picked up in our own way through senses we have. Which is why we cannot experience how other beings pick up other parts of the light spectre. Then again matter is a main parameter for our own intellect, and in another (hypothetical) alien intellect it might not be there, or there in any like form or nature. And likewise (in this hypothetical) we may not pick up countless other phenomena deemed as very main ones by other types of observing beings.

Something does exist in the case of light too, but the light we sense/count with technology, or observe in other objects, is not independent of our system of perception and thus is not the thing-in-itself either.

There is a nice passage by Guy de Maupassant where he argues that music is an art born out of having an ear drum that translates air movement/vibration into sounds, and thus something entirely unrelated to the actual phenomenon (movements/displacements in the medium) now became the basis for an entire art due to us having very particular organs of perception.

That makes sense. It would be unreasonable to make art which nobody can ever comprehend due to lacking the proper way to enjoy it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Anyone think they have an argument that would convince a solipsist that they are wrong?

 

[gay_Aleks]

He'd spend the following minutes debating with the imaginary images his mind created? Also trying to make them nonexistent.

 

[Borachio]

Anyone think they have an argument that would convince a solipsist that they are wrong?

Yes. My brother had one. But it took him two weeks to come up with it. And now I can't remember what it was.

I just look around me and see a lot of people who remind me very much of myself, so by analogy, I just assume that I'm not alone in the world. It seems the most likely and reasonable explanation to me.

But I've little interest in convincing obviously deluded people that they're wrong. I'm deluded enough myself anyway, at the best of times.

Most solipsists, though, are just playing at it: they don't really believe it. I'm prone to doing this myself from time to time.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

He'd spend the following minutes debating with the imaginary images his mind created? Also trying to make them nonexistent.

He doesn't have to try. Solipsism puts the burden of proving their existence on the images, not the solipsist...and as far as I know there is no such proof possible. The only benefit of solipsism I can find is that it isn't mythology. The solipsist is not required to accept any unproven axiom for his construct to operate.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Except, you know, that his mind is all that exists.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes. My brother had one. But it took him two weeks to come up with it. And now I can't remember what it was.

I just look around me and see a lot of people who remind me very much of myself, so by analogy, I just assume that I'm not alone in the world. It seems the most likely and reasonable explanation to me.

But I've little interest in convincing obviously deluded people that they're wrong. I'm deluded enough myself anyway, at the best of times.

Most solipsists, though, are just playing at it: they don't really believe it. I'm prone to doing this myself from time to time.

I don't actually know anyone who even plays at it. I keep it in mind as an object lesson to keep me from getting too attached to any other description systems that I might otherwise elevate to 'reality'.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Except, you know, that his mind is all that exists.

That isn't an axiom...or even an assertion of solipsism. The solipsist trusts the observation of the mind by the mind...so it exists. There is no assertion that it is 'all' that exists, there is just a lack of proof that anything else does or doesn't. The one observed fact is insufficient to prove anything on without accepting some axioms. That's what makes solipsism useful, because it demonstrates that somewhere deep in whatever linguistic/mathematical descriptive system is popular there are some unproven axioms.

 

[Kyriakos]

That isn't an axiom...or even an assertion of solipsism. The solipsist trusts the observation of the mind by the mind...so it exists. There is no assertion that it is 'all' that exists, there is just a lack of proof that anything else does or doesn't. The one observed fact is insufficient to prove anything on without accepting some axioms. That's what makes solipsism useful, because it demonstrates that somewhere deep in whatever linguistic/mathematical descriptive system is popular there are some unproven axioms.

That doesn't need actual solipsism, though; any Idealism will suffice for scepticism against there being actual 'knowledge' to be had in any thinking system or method, which would be more than an effect of the said system and method.

Solipsism is rather the extreme end of Idealism, in that it not only argues for there being no perception (or knowledge either, of course) or the things-in-themselves (any object of the perception outside the observer's actual world of thought), but that furthermore the specific individual thinking is the only actual 'existent' being there to begin with, with the rest functioning as some sort of illusion caused by his mind.
So in less extreme Idealism there is the (not proven, but accepted for practical reason) view that like the individual thinker all other thinkers are in analogous state in regards to the phenomena around them, while in solipsism there is simply no other thinker there to begin with.

 

[Akka]

If you make a point I'll think about it. I suggest that if you start from the beginning of the conversation and actually catch up even you might be able to contribute something.

Already made the point, and already read the thread from the beginning.
Again, that you purposedly ignore a point made is your responsability, not the responsability of the other guy.

And to your other question : it's impossible to (philosophically speaking) prove absolutely solipsism false. You can always think about scenarios that makes everything outside the mind illusionary (Matrix is the most overused but still good example of how everything you perceive outside of your mind can be false, though even it doesn't go as far as the theorically possible negation of all reality that is being considered as an invention from the mind which exists alone and by itself).

Now, that being said, even if we consider this special case, it still doesn't change anything : be the universe an invention of my mind, or the actual world, it still obey laws and they are (best) described and able to be used by science, not mythology.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That doesn't need actual solipsism, though; any Idealism will suffice for scepticism against there being actual 'knowledge' to be had in any thinking system or method, which would be more than an effect of the said system and method.

Solipsism is rather the extreme end of Idealism, in that it not only argues for there being no perception (or knowledge either, of course) or the things-in-themselves (any object of the perception outside the observer's actual world of thought), but that furthermore the specific individual thinking is the only actual 'existent' being there to begin with, with the rest functioning as some sort of illusion caused by his mind.
So in less extreme Idealism there is the (not proven, but accepted for practical reason) view that like the individual thinker all other thinkers are in analogous state in regards to the phenomena around them, while in solipsism there is simply no other thinker there to begin with.

The bolded is the entire point.

As I said, I don't see solipsism as being particularly useful in itself, other than as an example of how necessary it is to accept some sort of axioms to achieve anything practical. The flip side of that example being the reminder that whatever the utility of the system it is still built upon those axioms that are just accepted for practical reasons so the construct is not 'real' no matter how useful it may be. Latching onto one such construct over all others is just righteousness, even if the one latched onto appears to be 'most useful'.

 

[Kyriakos]

Already made the point, and already read the thread from the beginning.
Again, that you purposedly ignore a point made is your responsability, not the responsability of the other guy.

And to your other question : it's impossible to (philosophically speaking) prove absolutely solipsism false. You can always think about scenarios that makes everything outside the mind illusionary (Matrix is the most overused but still good example of how everything you perceive outside of your mind can be false, though even it doesn't go as far as the theorically possible negation of all reality that is being considered as an invention from the mind which exists alone and by itself).

Now, that being said, even if we consider this special case, it still doesn't change anything : be the universe an invention of my mind, or the actual world, it still obey laws and they are (best) described and able to be used by science, not mythology.

Not sure if it obeys laws though, cause inherently we can only check for laws in effects we do pick up in the first place. Imagine an ant-scientist claiming that it is good that the universe can never allow for a chaotic (for an ant) sense of actual height. All of the ant scientists have long known that actual space is 2d, and other dimensions are theoretical fancy. They also have the likely unrelated (and not really explained) notion of sudden disappearance, but not many of those ants have actually gone as far as to claim that it may involve some other dimension of non-sensed space (eg height)

 

[Antilogic]

The most subjectively awesome (and exclusive) mythology is the stuff we came up with as kids for Dungeons & Dragons campaigns. Unfortunately, there aren't any published materials on it, and I don't think I knew any of you jokers while I was playing it.

 

[Kyriakos]

The bolded is the entire point.

As I said, I don't see solipsism as being particularly useful in itself, other than as an example of how necessary it is to accept some sort of axioms to achieve anything practical. The flip side of that example being the reminder that whatever the utility of the system it is still built upon those axioms that are just accepted for practical reasons so the construct is not 'real' no matter how useful it may be. Latching onto one such construct over all others is just righteousness, even if the one latched onto appears to be 'most useful'.

Yes, but we do think for practical reason all the time too, since it is the only viable thing. When i go outside i do accept (without proof) that i won't be gunned down by some sniper who now happens to be in some roof-top. If i was anxious that i might be then i would be unable to function in any manner when in an environment that potentially hosts other humans as well

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not sure if it obeys laws though, cause inherently we can only check for laws in effects we do pick up in the first place. Imagine an ant-scientist claiming that it is good that the universe can never allow for a chaotic (for an ant) sense of actual height. All of the ant scientists have long known that actual space is 2d, and other dimensions are theoretical fancy. They also have the likely unrelated (and not really explained) notion of sudden disappearance, but not many of those ants have actually gone as far as to claim that it may involve some other dimension of non-sensed space (eg height)

Tunnel complexes dug by ants are distinctly three dimensional, and I see no reason to think the ants don't know that.

Totally off point. Just saying you seem to be demeaning the ant scientist unjustly here.

 

[Kyriakos]

Tunnel complexes dug by ants are distinctly three dimensional, and I see no reason to think the ants don't know that.

Totally off point. Just saying you seem to be demeaning the ant scientist unjustly here.

Well yeah, i was being lazy and also thinking of a famous hypothesis or claim phrased with such hypothetical 2d sensing ants (a hypothesis about such a being being or not able to gather whether a plane it is walking on is in fact not linear but curved. Iirc the Russian mathematician, Gregory Pererlman, provided some sort of general answer for that a few years ago ).

PS: yes, it was a claim/hypothesis by Poincare, of the eponymous symmetry system used by Einstein as well You can read about it here: http://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems-poincaré-conjecture/perelmans-solution

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes, but we do think for practical reason all the time too, since it is the only viable thing. When i go outside i do accept (without proof) that i won't be gunned down by some sniper who now happens to be in some roof-top. If i was anxious that i might be then i would be unable to function in any manner when in an environment that potentially hosts other humans as well

I don't see the need. I might go so far as to invoke the mythology of probabilities; ie the odds of a rooftop sniper are infinitesimal; but mostly I just try to operate in reality without resorting to descriptive systems any more than is absolutely necessary.

 

[Akka]

Not sure if it obeys laws though, cause inherently we can only check for laws in effects we do pick up in the first place. Imagine an ant-scientist claiming that it is good that the universe can never allow for a chaotic (for an ant) sense of actual height. All of the ant scientists have long known that actual space is 2d, and other dimensions are theoretical fancy. They also have the likely unrelated (and not really explained) notion of sudden disappearance, but not many of those ants have actually gone as far as to claim that it may involve some other dimension of non-sensed space (eg height)

Yes, we can only check for laws which we can pick up the effects. I don't really see how it's relevant, though, save for a purely philosophical point. Science is just a process for explaining the world in the best possible way. It's pretty obvious that there is plenty of things it will, by definition, never be able to answer, but that's the point, and one difference with mythology : it's about answering what you can, not what you want.