Regardless, the self still controls itself. Whether you are aware of it or not. I find it strange that you keep denying that when you yourself posit that the self is all there is. No, you quoted and responded to post 11.
I'm sorry, but this complete nonsense. Do you need pain and suffering to relieve you from boredom ? Tell that to all the starving children in the third world. Tell them they are only imagining it out of boredom ! :bugeye:
If solipsism is true, and for a solipsist, there is suffering, then there is the question of why there is suffering for a self who is in control of itself?
Hey don't ask me. Solipsism is complete insanity in my opinion. Your question is akin to asking: "If a car has no engine but you can still drive it, how is it moving ?" You can't still drive it.
Why would I ? They are just imagining me.. Do you need pain and suffering in others or yourself to relieve you from boredom ?
The one has the "capacity" to bring into reality anything one wants. The ability of this capacity is limited to knowledge and technology. And there is no such a thing called "without a mistake". But there is a concept called "as accurate as possible", depending on the aim and situation. I seriously find the reality of "my being is confined to this planet for a limited period of time" is a natural mistake. Then I have to correct nature's mistake and make my existence longer and better. If I do not do that, neither nature nor anything else is responsible for my dissapearance, but only me.
really okay bring in a galaxy where one wasn't presentPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! and as proof that it is there show the world bring water to California , on your own
you see solipsism is not about knowledge or technology solipsism is about creating the world around and above you with no previous knowledge needed about either hence the ology ( the study of ) solipists are the begining of lawers to me manipulate a situation , good with words
Exactly. So it could be the same in solipsism. Ask a cigarette smoker how easy it is to control everything. Or a nervous person. I haven't said that solipsism is correct. I think your refutations are not convincing, but I am not a solipsist, especially the version you primarily fight against.
You have read a few times that you are talking only about one kind of solipsism, right? You do understand that other forms of solipsism present problems for people referring to objective reality. Note Glaucon's first response to you in the thread. That said, there is no reason why even in the version of solipsism you are arguing against the solipsist cannot die. If the solipsist thinks that's it, that might be it. I don't know why you think the solipsist world functions the ways you imagine it must. and, yet again, this is only one version of solipsism which is more epistemological than ontological.
What an uncharitable interpretation. Take a moment as see the logical fallacy here. I am saying that a being might create its own suffering to relieve boredom. I did not say that every being that suffers has created its own suffering to relieve boredom. You are also not considering how the kind of solipsist you are arguing against - an ontological solipsist - would view those suffering children.
Yeah, no one goes to scary movies, or gets addicted to nicotine or other drugs that damage them. No one gets involved with inappropriate romantic partners and prefer this over sitting alone in their apartments. No one goes and gets in arguments in internet discussion forums, arguments that irritate them, even though they know there are other things they could do that do not irritate them so much. I dunno, I am sure it is possible there are people in Western societies who do not harm themselves to relieve boredom, but I suspect their introspective skills are actually too weak to notice. And I still don't think you have answered the questions relating to 1) why Ockham's Razor does not give the advantage to solipsism 2) what your criteria for burden of proof are
No, I described how a solipsist would see it. Not how other people see it. You see, things other than the self can control you in real life. Ok, I am not trying to refute solipsism. It is unfalsifiable. And that's precisely the reason why it shouldn't be an argument against or for anything. You, on the other hand, are trying to use solipsism to refute objective reality. And I'm really questioning your intentions, since you now say that you are not a solipsist. What are you arguing for ??
