do you think that what "is" differs from what we ARE ABLE TO percieve? we only see what we CAN see, we only hear what we CAN hear, because of the limitations of our senses. for example, to a deaf person.."sound" does not exist because they are lacking this sense. they are oblivous to the notion of sound. the same applies to blind people...the visual world doesn't exist. a bat by nature, is blind. dolphins have sonar detection. pythons have heat sensing pits, and see the world in heat colouration. different species all interpret the external world vastly different from what the human being does. perhaps it could be said that the human being is designed to recieve and intepret stimuli from the external world with more "accuracy" than any other species? this is the area i am GREATLY CONFUSED ABOUT. this is as much a philosophical debate as a scientific one, because how are we to know what accurate perception is if wre are completely oblivious to what "is" versus what "isn't"...for example the blind eperson...how are they to know that what they're percieving isn't accurate. when they feel something they know it is "there" but they cannot see it. you cant tell what is and what isn't. if this is not true this means that our senses reflect the external world with 100% accuracy, which I find impossible to believe, given the shortcomings and advantages of other animals due to how they percieve the external world differently from a human

It all boils down to what we define as our self and what we define as not ourself. Our perceptions give us a sense that there is a world outside ourself. If we had no senses, we wouldn't come to this conclusion, at least I don't see how we could.
But, then what's to say that we are just as deprived as a person with no perceptions? That our existence is only in our mind? That there is a world out there that we can't perceive.
We can't get outside ourselves to look back and say, this is what we are.

Now, I find the above fascinating to think about, but it doesn't really change how we live our lives much. More than anything, it's just a thinking exercise.

But, then what's to say that we are just as deprived as a person with no perceptions? That our existence is only in our mind? That there is a world out there that we can't perceive.

Because there have been many experiments done which show that there is an objective universe out there (at some level).

Because there have been many experiments done which show that there is an objective universe out there (at some level).

How can you trust the results of these experiments when the tools with which they were conducted could be an illusion themselves?

Reality is subjective to perception and the mind. One can never know objective reality. You might argue that you feel this reality you perceive is the real, but how can you, if your life-long experience with feelings were based on an illusion?

All we perceive are electrical stimuli interpreted by our brain, the center of which is the I, the awareness of self and of these interpretations. Yet that brain might not even be this chunk of grey fat we perceive it to be.

We might very well be hooked up to VR machines totally capable of fooling our perceptions into thinking we are walking, running and dancing around seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching - Mind you, even those operating the VR machines could be victims of an illusion themselves.

We might be immortal entities so bored with eternity we take vacations from ourselves as humans in a virtual world, leaving our memory of our real selves for later reinstallment, just to make the trip more interesting - Mind you, even the entities we might really be could be victims of an illusion themselves.

We could be the victims of some highly evolved cosmical entity keeping us in a state of illusion through means of technology, psychic powers or magic, just for shits and giggles - Mind you, this cosmical entity could be victim of an illusion itself.

The objectively real us might not be humans, as we perceive us. We could be vastly different in form, we could be beings of energy without matter. There could be just this one I, and all the rest of you are part of the illusion.

This is, as pointed out before, merely a brain exercise and once you get started, there's really no end to all the fathomable scenarios. But the truth at the end of it is indeed that reality is subjective and can never be objective nomatter how many technological or divine revelations one might be exposed to.

How can you trust the results of these experiments when the tools with which they were conducted could be an illusion themselves?

Because I am not talking about those experiments per se.

If I ask somebody to read me out a 10 digit number from a page I have written down they will repeat it to me exactly. This means that they are seeing the same page and same ink. The chances of him guessing the right number are very high. This is objective reality. So are colours. When we both agree on the colour of something, THAT must be the objective reality.

Now it is possible that everything we see and do, and everything we see other people do is just a dream. In other words, everything that has ever happened is a creation of your own imagination. This would mean that u are the only person in the universe. If another mind existed then like I have shown, objective reality can be prove to exist.

If I ask somebody to read me out a 10 digit number from a page I have written down they will repeat it to me exactly. This means that they are seeing the same page and same ink. The chances of him guessing the right number are very high. This is objective reality. So are colours. When we both agree on the colour of something, THAT must be the objective reality.

Now it is possible that everything we see and do, and everything we see other people do is just a dream. In other words, everything that has ever happened is a creation of your own imagination. This would mean that u are the only person in the universe. If another mind existed then like I have shown, objective reality can be prove to exist.

You seem to contradict yourself. You said:

"Now it is possible....and everything we see other people do is just a dream."

and

"If another mind existed then like I have shown, objective reality can be prove to exist."

You admit that what others we perceive tell us can be an illusion, therefor you cannot use what they say to qualify objective reality. Another option is that what they tell you is the both of you perceiving the same illusion.

The fact remains that you cannot and never will be able to claim 100% certainty of the reality you perceive - it will always remain subjective.

This is an excelent discussion, I decided to join because this is something that I think about a lot. I believe this is one of those topics where philosphy (epistemology and metaphysics) and science (cognition) meets. This is specially dedcated to West side, because I share with you a lot of your concerns. This is what I have found.

All the posts here have been moving between the two edges of the espectrum from representational-realist to solipsist. I would like to use something closely related to Lacan's distinction between The real (that which does not depend on my idea of it), that is, "the world outside", and reality (my perception and idea of The real).

Representationalists and solipsists, don´t make a distinction between reality and the real.
For solipsism there´s no real (or what others call the real) only what's in my mind. For representational cognition there's no reality (or what others call reality) only the real, my mind makes a perfect copy or representation of it. (West side wrote: "our senses reflect the external world with 100% accuracy, which I find impossible to believe")

A truly satisfying middle position is that of Chilean neuroscientists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela. They argue that mind doesn't reflect an independently existing world but that we "bring forth a world". The world that we bring forth is structurally determined, that is, determined by our biological structure, our nervous system, for example. That's exactly what West Side is talking about. Each species bring forth a different world because they have different structures, each has it's own cognitive domain. Bacterias "bring forth a world" of temperature and chemical composition, we humans "bring forth" a more complex world. Deaf and blind people have different cognitive domains.
We humans "bring forth" the same colors (and even the same number sequences, John Connellan) because we share a biological structure. Cognition is structural coupling, reality arises out of a structural coupling between you and the world. Think about colors, they are wave frequencies interpeted by our brains.
This position is called "enactive cognition" or constructivism. There's also a social constructivism that explores how our perception is also formed by society and culture.

Maturana and Varela believe that the world out there is a true unity (a wholeness, David Bohm would say) and we humans, through language, "bring forth" a world of objects, of separate entities, by a process they call distinction (to distinguish something from its background). The ego or self is also "brought forth", we "bring forth" ourselves as we "bring forth" a tree, by distinction. They believe that this world of separation that we bring forth is the source for some of our problems, but that's a topic for another discussion.

I find this position more convincing that hard realism or hard solipsism (maybe everything is an illusion and a conspiracy Jubatus, but I believe that we have to cut that using Occam's razor).

There's only one thing that doesn't convince me. Maturana and Varela paint an unformed external world, for them, the real is an unformed whole out of which we distinguish separate entities. In this I agree more with Deleuze and Guattari, they also explain something similar to structural coupling, that is, affect. Affect is the capacity of affect and being affected by something. I would say that cognition arises out of affects. In Deleuze & Guattari, there's a real world out there but it is not unformed, it has forms and expression because form is immanent to matter, it is not imposed from above (not even from our minds). What we bring forth are signs, symptoms of real qualities or expressions from real material processes governed by "abstract machines" (think about non-linear dynamics).

These are my thoughts so far. I do believe in the real, an external world, a flow of matter with emergent forms (like rocks, trees or ourselves), but I also believe in a brought forth reality determined by our biology and our culture.

I always fantasize about the real, that flow of matter without being perceived by me.








:m:

do you think that what "is" differs from what we ARE ABLE TO percieve?

No! I trust the stimuli that my senses give me. My brain intergrates the info, from the senses and consciousness makes me aware of my enviorement.

A "perception" is a group of sensations, automatically retained and intergrated by the brain of a living organism, which gives it the ability to be aware, not of a single stimuli, but of entities, by percepts. "Ayn Rand"

Man's senses are his only direct cognitive contact with reality and, therefore his only source of information. Without sensory evidence, there can be no concepts; without concepts, there can be no language; without language, there can be no knowledge, and no science. "Kant vs Sullivan"

The senses can be fooled, this is done by magicians all the time, however we don't deal with magic, all the time. So what you perceive is what is, because you perceive it. Unless you are watching a hollywood picture, or a magician perform then you are been fooled by the art of illusion.

Godless.

I find this position more convincing that hard realism or hard solipsism (maybe everything is an illusion and a conspiracy Jubatus, but I believe that we have to cut that using Occam's razor).

Be that as it may, Occam's Razor always leaves room for doubt and doubt is all of solipsism, so in effect Occam's Razor is a pro-solipsistic tool.

No, it wasn't a contradiction. I said that IF u could prove that another mind existed, then objective reality would also have been proven. I was just bringin the discussion onto that. So far u are right, we haven't proven that other minds exist. I am typing a post out to u here, but are u real?! :eek: Are u just another version of me :eek:

Maybe we can try to prove that other minds exist in this thread now :)

do you think that what "is" differs from what we ARE ABLE TO percieve?

Definitely. We are only able to perceive 5 or 6 properties of anything in the universe. And we don't even perceive ALL of each of those properties (e.g. we don't perceive UV radiation directly).

Maybe we can try to prove that other minds exist in this thread now

Don't be silly, I'm not you.

My mind does not perceive UV rays, but my skin does, it burns in the sun. So therefore since I know UV rays exists, I know that that is what is burning my sking. + scientist were able to perceive UV rays with special tools. Hubble Telescope. for one.

Godless.

Not to get right into semantics or anything, but I think we need to refine a working definition of perception here. One could argue that your skin does not perceive UV rays; it merely reacts to them. That reaction, is indeed processed by your brain. Whether or not you choose to call that perception, is up for debate.
Nevertheless, I find it odd no one has brought up the idea that there maybe no functional difference between 'reality' (sic) and perception (a la Berkely; esse est percipi). :-)

No, it wasn't a contradiction. I said that IF u could prove that another mind existed, then objective reality would also have been proven. I was just bringin the discussion onto that.

There cannot even be an if about proving it really, it will always be unprovable to 100% certainty. But to play along, if you proved the existence of that other mind then you'll have proven nothing more than merely that with regards to objective reality, meaning that just because that mind is real doesn't dictate that all the rest is, too.

Maybe we can try to prove that other minds exist in this thread now

Try all you will, I for one realize the futility of such an endeavor.

The only thing that is proven to exist with 100% certainty is objective truth. (truth = reality).

Objective truth????
Wow, two concepts, neither of which can even be logically demonstrated to have been 'proven' to exist.

'Truth', of course, being nothing other than an agreement to an accepted system of belief.

'Objective', of course, being nothing other than a word used to describe perceived agreement within a system of beliefs.

I define "truth" and "reality" to be "what simply is". "objective truth" is just a term used by some people who believe there are different "types" of truths. For me, there is only one truth. I’ve said this before in other threads without anyone commenting on it. Here it is again:

1) Truth exists
2) Truth does not exist.

Statement 1) or 2) must be TRUE therefore TRUTH exists.

Can this be proof of the existence of truth?

I find it odd no one has brought up the idea that there maybe no functional difference between 'reality' (sic) and perception (a la Berkely; esse est percipi). :-)

Glaucon I find your intervention really interesting. About Berkeley´s esse es percipi (to be is to be perceived). Sincerely, I´m not familiar enough with Berkeley´s philosophy, but on a first look I found that view a little anthropocentric or at least biocentric. What about the material (physical, chemical) processes on the universe and the earth that occured billions of years before the appearance of any cognitive entity (living organism)? They have no ontological status? To say that, is to say that only phenomena exist and I trust in the existence of noumena. I don´t believe in a biology-free cognition.

What do you mean by no functional difference between reality and perception?

"objective truth" is just a term used by some people who believe there are different "types" of truths. For me, there is only one truth.

If so, why did you used the term "objective truth" in the frist place?


I define "truth" and "reality" to be "what simply is".

So, what is the result if we put it like this?

1. "What simply is" exists.
2. "What simply is" does not exist.

or

1. Reality exists.
2. Reality does not exists.

I think that you are playing logics with empty exchangeable concepts.

I think that you are playing logics with empty exchangeable concepts.

I don’t understand.
If I define A=B=C=D, then what difference is it which term I use? Truth transcends language.
Statement 1) or statement 2) must be a “truth”
Statement 1) or statement 2) must be a “reality”
Statement 1) or statement 2) must be “what simply is”
Statement 1) or statement 2) must be an “objective truth”

How can truth be an "empty exchangeable concept"?

Don't be silly, I'm not you.

My mind does not perceive UV rays, but my skin does, it burns in the sun. So therefore since I know UV rays exists, I know that that is what is burning my sking. + scientist were able to perceive UV rays with special tools. Hubble Telescope. for one.

Godless.

I was using it as an analogy. If u really want to go into it, then u can sense UV rays using the touch sensors. This is one of the 5-6 senses I talked about earlier so it changes nothing. How can u think that everything in the universe can be sensed just by the 5 or 6 senses evolved by us over a very short period of time?!

There cannot even be an if about proving it really, it will always be unprovable to 100% certainty. But to play along, if you proved the existence of that other mind then you'll have proven nothing more than merely that with regards to objective reality,

Yes. that objective reality is true. That's how u prove it!

meaning that just because that mind is real doesn't dictate that all the rest is, too.

What the hell is this talking about? If u can prove that another mind is sensing the same things as u then that is objective reality by definition.

jcamachor,

I'm not prepared to defend Berkeley's point of view but: it's certainly anthropocentric, even to the point of supporting a solipsistic type ontology. For Berkeley, I'm sure he would invoke God as an explanation for physical processes that would obviously have to had preceeded any particular cognitor. Nevertheless, one could argue (without invoking God), that such processes can be explained as phenomenologically required elements of an established scientific model, operating within a solipsistic universe. In other words: all I can be certain of are those things which I perceive; my perceptions are verified via the scientific method, which I use to examine my world. So ultimately, Berkeley would say that there only are phenomena or, at best, noumena only exist while we interact with them (interesting kind of Uncertainty Priciple here..lol). Remember, Berkely precedes Kant, so use of terms like phenomena and noumena are for the most part invalid.
As far as functional differnece between reality and perception, all I mean is that it may be the case that one can accept perception for reality while in fact the two are not the same ( for example, object permanence is learned by children; before that, if they don't see it, it doesn't exist).

Yes. that objective reality is true. That's how u prove it!

....If u can prove that another mind is sensing the same things as u then that is objective reality by definition.

You cannot ever prove it with 100% certainty, and as said before even if the other mind truly exists it could simply be perceiving the same illusion.

But since I sense we have different definitions of the term objective I did actually find that some of its definitions clash.

objective

Having actual existence or reality.

and

of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers <objective reality>

The first defines actual existence, the other objects/phenomenons/conditions perceived similarly by independent observers.

This is where you and I clash, where I adhere to the first definition, actual existence, which one can never prove beyond a shadow of doubt.

Always sucks to waste argumentative energy just because we have our definitions differ, eh?

Most of the crap talked about wether we exist or not is plain silly!!

We exist period.

*Existence exists--and the act of grasping that statement implies two collary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.
If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms: A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.
Whatever degree of your knowledge, these two--existence and consciousness--are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it.
To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was--no matter what his errors--the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is IDENTITY, Consciousness is IDENTIFICATION.* Ayn Rand.

If you identify yourself as an existent, and that you possess consciousness, then you must possess an identity of yourself, hence giving you individualism, that you are seperate from those of other consciousness, and individuals should be COMMON SENSE to you, to speculate non-sequritus of your existence is plain stupidity, because the only way you can prove any of your assertions would be from an NON-EXISTENCE realm to explain existence.

I understand alot of things of life are "unknown" to us, so far, however I also have cerrtainty, that as we "evolve" learn nothing can be unknowable. There's lots of things one can't observe "perceive" that exists, hence one can't see a molecule, however using tools, we have given "identity" to matter we were unawere of, and call it "molecules" we were unaware of UV rays, however when discovered we gave it "identification" and use "tools" so that we know for a fact that UV rays can be distinquished from "radio waves" or whatever..

Godless.

Most of the crap talked about wether we exist or not is plain silly!!

It is indeed as stated earlier merely a brain exercise; a mere observation one should encompass with no need for emotional context.

....before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.

Indeed? Why can't being conscious of the conscience be enough? And even if perceiving something apart from the conscience is needed, how do you prove that something else real? Perception does not with 100% certainty = reality; Perception is merely interpretations of input.

Please, prove to me without a shadow of a doubt that observation can lead to certainty of reality. I know that you can't, but please do try.

I know that you cannot, for I have long since accepted the simple truth: You can know nothing apart from the existence of your own conscience. You can subjectively accept as much "reality" as you like, like most people do without question (if they really do exist - ok ok, not gonna go there...it'll never end) and hopefully reality will be none the worse for it.

And it brings me no dread, it does not deter me from acting, it does not fill me with despair. Subjectivity is quite enough for me, yet there is this buddhism-inspired ghost in the back of my head imploring me to seek enlightenment for my own freedom from existence. Which is a bitch, because my own reasoning tells me I can never reach that enlightenment, so I can only hope it's not needed.

Enough blabbering - get on with it!

of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers <objective reality>

Yes, that WAS the definition I was talking about but I also had in the back of my head, the other definition. I think they can be brought together.

The "illusion" u talk of must be created by the mind right? I hope for arguments sake, u will presume that the laws of physics of our universe operates. In this case, there is no way, statistically, that another mind can percieve the very same thing as your mind all the time unless

a) There is a God who designs it like this (i.e. laws of physics break down here

b) The laws of physics only apply inside this illusion and we are in fact, really in a different universe to the one we perceive :eek:

The former has religious connotations and the latter smacks of the Matrix doesn't it?!

Only if either (or both) of those things are true, can we xonsider there to be NO REALITY outside the existence of the two minds!

Anyway after all this, u are probably right about not being able to prove the absolute existance of another mind anyway............

But I'm still at the blackboard writing down equations :D

The "illusion" u talk of must be created by the mind right?

Only in the understanding that the mind is (among other things) awareness/conscience and it is by that we perceive. The illusion can be outside the mind just as well.

I hope for arguments sake, u will presume that the laws of physics of our universe operates.

For better argument's sake they might, in reality, not.

The former has religious connotations and the latter smacks of the Matrix doesn't it?!

Disprove either scenario, please.

-----

All arguments against solipsism always leaves room for doubt and that is all solipsism needs. And repeating myself yet again, it is only an observation, an understanding of a simple and (almost) completely useless fact.

dsdsds,

Ok, this discussion started with a question about the difference between what is "out there" and what we percieve. I think that most of us agree that there is a difference. Then the discussion turn to solipsism, about whether or not what is "out there" even exists. You came up with your sort of syllogism in order to prove that only truth can be proved to exist. But by defining truth as reality and reality as truth you tried to use your argument to prove the existence of reality. You think that if you can logically prove that truth exists then you are proving that reality exists.

But, your concept of truth=reality=what simply is, is not universally accepted. Glaucon, for example, defined truth as an agreement to an accepted system of belief. If we "run" your syllogism with that definition we get nothing.

1) Truth (an agreement to an accepted system of belief) exists.
2) Truth (an agreement to an accepted system of belief) does not exists.

Then, you said, if one of those is true (that is, we agree on statement 1 or 2) we don´t prove anything, we only get a sort of endless feedback of agreements or non agreements, but no prove of the existence of a sort of universal or logical truth much less a prove on the existence of reality, that is, what is "out there".

I mean, I´m not trying to go against you just because... What do you think?

what I think may seem pretty weird in this clever-soundin philosophy class, but its this:
i sometimes like to perceive people as monkeys. its like a subtle change of perception you allow yourself to feel. you choose. hve been doin this sometimes watching th olympics
i have no qualms being close to animals. we ARe animals
when i look and i watch people talkiing to each other, i thn become aware of language, and body language, etc etc

now, i am sure that originally us monkeys...hehe...first off explored and enjoyed foods, and later found hallucinogens, and began having reall wild get togthers (animals actually do also eat hallucinogens for ecstasy)........so yeah

later text was introduced and language gradually demonized actual free expression inspired with hallucinogens, first 'taming' it then later prohibiting it, then LANGUAGE comes to the fore

of course it was the well to do who had access to this tool, and then we get the Ionian philosphers of ancient Greece who create an abstrat trip out of 'reasoning'......here actual visceral experience is superceded by cebreal experience. and soon mind gets cut off from body

It is indeed as stated earlier merely a brain exercise; a mere observation one should encompass with no need for emotional context.

I wasn't trying to be "emotional" however when someone suggest that I don't exist. ;)

There's no doubt on my mind that existence exists, and that I possess a consciousness that perceives it, If I didn't "exist" hence before I was born, still existence-existed, hense "Other" consciousnessess perceived their own existence, when I die, the world will not end. It will end for me, I will no longer posses a consciouness, I will be a "memory" on someone eles consciousness. (i hope) LOL, :(

Anyhow I found a rather long winded article on the subject that refutes soligism at it's core.

we exist look here ;) (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare1.com/Articles/ogbunwezeh/2004/08/comprehensive-deconstruction-of.html)

Notice: only the first few paragraphs are of content of our discussion. The rest become political, but non-the-less interesting.

Godless.

G'day,
would like to say a few thing's on the subject myself. Firstly not much fruit is gain from discussing thing's we can't prove. What we choose to believe in the end is a personal decision, made for various reason's.
I believe in God because I look at the marvel's of nature and say it just couldn't have happend by itself. This does not mean I understand the essence of God. Truth only begin's when you are in communication with the source of all thing's.
Untill man has the power to replicate the universe he still
know's relatively nothing.
So basically anything goes. What is important in order to remain saine is to set up a system of proffitable reseach into various phenomena. So far science and technology is understanding more and more of our universe, this I would say is helping us percieve the world around us better. Theories are alway's been updated so in the future what is scientifically true today may prove false tomorrow. What is important is that if we choose to search for a better understanding of the universe we need to keep our mind's open. In the past many famous people tended to make their descoveries into canon law, imprisoning those who object. This is very disheartening and unfortunately it's still going on. The mind can be easily tricked, reaseach into way's of decieving people has never stoped. Add to that poor schooling and presto! you have a sucker born every day.
I feel we should all focus on becomming better observer's of our enviroment, not taking anything for granted. I wish finding the ultimate truth was simply a matter of pushing a button. I Guess their is no fun in that is there?
I think we need to define what is freedom in order to make some sence of our existance.
Freedom as I define it is the ability to make a decision. Freedom does not guarantee making an educated decision. Just because I can decide on my own doesn't mean my decision we be correct.
We learn from our mistake's, great! That mean's unless what I did was fatal we have another chance. The joy of life is based on having another chance. So freedom is also the mercy of nature to give us another chance at making the right decision.
Freedom is relative to our position in life. A computer programmer has the freedom to design a program the way he like's. I on the other hand have to settle for what I can afford to buy. So my freedom is limited. Likewise with the discusion "can I perceive everything that exist's" How can we when none of us ever created the universe. So Freedom is relative to the power bestowed on us. The ulimate quesitions can only be answered with ultimate power.
Hope I haven't bored you all.

There's no doubt on my mind that existence exists, and that I possess a consciousness that perceives it, If I didn't "exist" hence before I was born, still existence-existed, hense "Other" consciousnessess perceived their own existence, when I die, the world will not end. It will end for me,....

That you subjectively possess no doubt about your perceived reality does nothing to prove it.

As for the article you refer to:

Every thing in being exists in relation to others that are distinct from it. This fact of relationship banishes solipsism.

How exactly?

The article goes on to use relationships in all things from humans over pantheons to the atomic level, i.e. it uses the perceived reality, part of it sociology, to quantify objective reality (my definition of objective, that is) by pointing out society/ies as a basic part of our psyche.

The article holds nothing to solipsism - nothing does and nothing ever will. And the apparent fact that that simple fact will never sink in with some people is rather curious, for the argument of solipsism is absolutely irrefutable - much like religion, yet solipsism is not a faith, merely an understanding one should apply to no part of one's mundane existence.

I'm gonna try spelling it out slowly:

You...cannot...refute...solipsism!

no, i dont belive in solipsism. it's silly. like a metaphysical 'proof' for self-ishness. as if if everything is ME, then i am IT, type ting

rather ia intuit awarenesses. not 'Awareness' as like the Upanishad's idea of 'Oneness' vs the 'Many', where 'Oneness' becomes the goal one 'MUST' strive for, and the 'Many' becomes denigrated, including one's unique individual perspective on things. THAt is a form of fascism

i also dont believe in reincarnation as it
is usually defined, togther with the doctrine of 'karma'. this belief is very dangerous, because it incites a callous disregard for other people's suffering, and inequality, because it is 'their karma' 'we mustn't interferee with universal law'. Thus you get cultures who believe in this, such as India, where poverty is extremely bad
It is noticeable how western newage beliefs embrace all that

Rather i believe in awareness.....for example, you are you and i am me. you sense you are aware, and so am i. what we share is matter-energy--our bodies and subtle energies and our body--the environment (by this i mean that our bodes dont just end at our skin. in order for us ti live, we NEEd sun, oxygen, water, trees, etc. so that TOO is our body), and consciousness

awarensses is prolific, and is nowhere nowwhen here there and everywhich

Only in the understanding that the mind is (among other things) awareness/conscience and it is by that we perceive. The illusion can be outside the mind just as well.

Something HAS to create the illusion. If it's outside the mind then there is objective reality.

Disprove either scenario, please.

No. Like I said, its impossible. However we have now learned that these are the 2 possibilities we are left to consider if there is no objective reality. i think we are getting somewhere, this thought experiment wasn' completely useless!

All arguments against solipsism always leaves room for doubt and that is all solipsism needs. And repeating myself yet again, it is only an observation, an understanding of a simple and (almost) completely useless fact.

Like I said, it's not useless. We can form interesting theories based on the presumption that objective reality DOES NOT exist!

Something HAS to create the illusion. If it's outside the mind then there is objective reality.

Indeed there is, but you can never find out what the objective reality is. And with regards to solipsism you can never prove that it is not your mind lying to you.

i think we are getting somewhere, this thought experiment wasn' completely useless!...... We can form interesting theories based on the presumption that objective reality DOES NOT exist!

It is useless. Sure, we can form interesting theories, but since we can never prove them, they have no real use. We cannot get anywhere with this apart from an entertaining stroll down Unprovable Theories Lane.

-----

I have this nagging feeling that some of the participants in this thread are misinformed about or are misinterpreting solipsism. Solipsism does not claim that there is only the self, it only claims that the self is the only thing you can know is real with 100% certainty (whether or not that self is lying to itself is irrelevant for the definition). Solipsism does not refute that the subjective reality we perceive through interpretation of input through our senses is indeed objective reality. Solipsism is only understanding this very simple observation.

Indeed there is, but you can never find out what the objective reality is. And with regards to solipsism you can never prove that it is not your mind lying to you.

Agreed

It is useless. Sure, we can form interesting theories, but since we can never prove them, they have no real use. We cannot get anywhere with this apart from an entertaining stroll down Unprovable Theories Lane.

No we can't prove which one it is but we can narrow down the options to the 2 I have mentioned. That, I think, is something :)

No we can't prove which one it is but we can narrow down the options to the 2 I have mentioned. That, I think, is something :)

Indeed? Prove it please.

EDIT: You know what, strike that. I'm gonna get back to you on this tomorrow, but right now I'm too damn tired to get properly into this....Gonna hit the sack - then go to bed. Stand by.

if you are in a mindset of.." you can never trust that your mind aint deceiving you"...this means you are not trusting yourself.....This is perfect for the powers that be. they LOVe that!

You...cannot...refute...solipsism!

Yea you can.

Phylosophically there is no unknowable, everything can be known, discovered. Solipsism has been refuted and basically killed. Let me do the old cut and paste :D

The belief that your own mental states are the only states

This means that only your self exists, nothing else. All is a creation of your imagination including other beings. Other beings, who may appear to be alive, are actually just projections of your own being.

This is clearly very difficult to refute, as it is impossible to validate any experiences other than your own and therefore impossible to prove than any life, other than the self, is actually alive and not just a biological automaton that has learned to communicate as if it was alive.

"He who sees everything as nothing but the Self, and the Self in everything he sees, such a seer withdraws from nothing.

For the enlightened, all that exists is nothing but the Self, so how could any suffering or delusion continue for those who know this oneness?"

Isha Upanishad, sloka 6

Problem One: Explaining Solipsism to someone
However a problem is faced in Solipsism when you try to explain this belief to someone else. You see, it is nearly impossible to convince anyone that this could be true. There are only two ways to convince someone that Solipsism is true:

* You have to convince them that *they* are valid, and that you yourself are a projection of their own self. However they'll know you can't possibly believe this yourself.

* So, you have to convince them that they are a projection of your imagination. Which they simply will never believe, because they are conscious themselves.

It appears, using this simplistic approach to Solipsism, to be impossible to state that you yourself are the only valid consciousness in a meaningful way, because anyone who you tell it to will automatically disbelieve you. That is a major problem, it makes Solipsism workable only as a completely private belief. It doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true, if you do honestly believe that all the people around you are automatons of your own creation, and do not posess independent consciousness.

Problem Two: There can only be one!
It seems only one person in the world can be a solipsist and be correct in their belief. If two Solipsists ever meet, one of them are wrong in their belief. This problem begins to appear as a symptom of a great problem of solipsism: It might not actually be true.

Problems resolved: God
But I soon came up with a Vexen style workaround from this problem based on the assumption that the self is God. I came up with the notion that even our own consciousness is not the actual, valid, true consciousness. That only our subconscious is.

Our subconscious, for want of something to do, created a Universe and created lots of people and created our conscious self also, as the only valid individual in this world. This seemed to me to be an argument for the existence of God.

Because if this was true, it is just as true to say that the real Solipsist is God, and that all people are the creation of that God, including the Solipsist himself. This would mean that Solipsism was the same (practically) as standard theism (especially pantheism), but merely looking at it from a different perspective. However, before the theists get excited, it turns out that this defence of Solipsism doesn't work out!

The final argument against Solipsism was the result of a question I asked myself about consciousness. What is it? And why does a Solipsist think that they are the only source of consciousness?

Further problems
Solipsism has another problem. Where do the experiences come from? If they are self generated, how did the self come into existence? It seems the self cannot die. These unanswered questions are no different to the unanswered questions of other belief systems such as theism or atheism. Where did God come from? Where did the Universe come from? Where did the Solipsist self come from? These appear to me to be the same question expressed in different words, but answered internally by no belief system.

There is a question that all belief systems need to answer: What is the cause of existence? I think any belief systems that causes more problems and questions than it answers are probably faulty (occam's razor). So, theism (we believe God done it) causes more problems, because we are then left with multiple questions such as "Where did God come from?" in addition to "Why did God create the Universe?". Solipsism leaves us with "Where did the self come from" and "Why do we create our own experiences of the Universe?"

It seems we would be able to do anything, to be omnipotent, if the Universe was our own solipsist creation. All in all there are very little signs that this is true. It seems very much like we are not living in my Solipsist world ... it seems more sensible (although it is not provable) that consciousness is a product of the Universe, and not the other way round.

Solipsism misunderstands consciousness
Biology as the cause of life is also the cause of consciousness. There is simply no reason to presume that simply because you can't validate other life that biology (based on scientific laws) does not create valid consciousness other than your own self. If yourself logically exists, then there is basis for stating that logic alone can create life.

The assumption, therefore, that yourself, one particular individual, is the only life that the laws of nature have produced seems to be unfounded. If your own consciousness is valid, then it is likely that the consciousness of all life is valid too.

With this realisation I saw a mistake. Solipsism is at the very extreme end of subjectivism. This is the belief that because all people are different, all people see things differently. Which is perfectly sensible. Solipsism takes this and adds the major problem of epistemology (that all our information is from our own experiences, which may be wrong) and arrives at the conclusion that the self is the only valid consciousness.

This, however, is a mistake. There's an extra assumption in there which I think is wrong. It is valid that we cannot verify that our experiences come from anywhere but within. But this lack of validation is definitely not proof of the non-existence of other beings. Just because we can't verify that other beings exist does not mean that they don't. It is an assumption, an unfounded one, of Solipsists to assert that themselves are the only valid source of experience.

Combine this unknown with the fact that biology appears to have created both our own and other people's lives and we are left with a feeling that there is actually valid conscious life, even if we can't personally prove it to ourselves experimentally.

Therefore it becomes illogical (for me) to ignore the basis of life in biology in order to stick to the belief that only the self is conscious, when there is reason to suspect that biology generates valid life, including the self.

The final argument for Solipsism is that consciousness is not the result of biology, but the uncaused cause is the self, a single conscious person who creates his own Universe and we live in that Universe. However, as I am a conscious person, and I live in a Universe where conscious life is generated from biology, Solipsism cannot be true. If someone in a different existence, a different Universe, believes that they are eternal, God and the uncaused cause then they'll never read this text (because they're in a different Universe) and for all intents and purposes I think I'm ready to declare Solipsism dead. Which is a shame, because it was real fun!

Vexen (http://www.vexen.co.uk/3/solipsism.html)

Anyways it's pretty good argument. I can only assert, that you keep refuting yourself, if you keep contradicting my posts. LOL,LOL, :D

Godless.

Godless, *puts on my best Yoda imitation* hear you nothing that I say?

I have this nagging feeling that some of the participants in this thread are misinformed about or are misinterpreting solipsism. Solipsism does not claim that there is only the self, it only claims that the self is the only thing you can know is real with 100% certainty (whether or not that self is lying to itself is irrelevant for the definition). Solipsism does not refute that the subjective reality we perceive through interpretation of input through our senses is indeed objective reality. Solipsism is only understanding this very simple observation.

All arguments against solipsism always leaves room for doubt and that is all solipsism needs.

You...cannot...refute...solipsism!

There, now they're all together in one post. Please read, contemplate as necessary and comprehend.

it only claims that the self is the only thing you can know is real with 100% certainty

That's YOUR interpretation. The meaning of the word regardless of how you perceive it, differs from your interpretation!. :bugeye:

Solipsism is the metaphysical belief that only oneself exists, and that "existence" just means being a part of one's own mental states - all objects, people, etc, that one experiences, are merely parts of one's own mind. One is like a God, creating the reality in which one exists. Solipsism is logically coherent, but not falsifiable, so it cannot be established (or disproved) by current modes of the scientific method.Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism)

So when you keep refuting me in essence by the "belief" of solipsism, you keep contradicting yourself.

And yes I read it can't be disproved, but regardless just by you trying here to explain it to me, and I refusing your explanations, renders solipsism incoherent, because if it were only one mind, then the mind is contradicting itself.

Anyhow it's good excercise to try and think of a way to literally kill the concept. But the only way to kill the concept would be suicide.

Good day
Godless.

... so it cannot be established (or disproved) by current modes of the scientific method.

This achieves nothing. The scientific method is a purely inductive method of establishing tendencies, nothing more. The idea that the sun will rise tomorrow similarly cannot be proved or disproved via scientific method. The point? Simply that nothing is made certain by this approach; it is ultimately no more valid than any other reasoning approach, including one that may obtain within a solipsistic universe (sic).

That's YOUR interpretation. The meaning of the word regardless of how you perceive it, differs from your interpretation!. :bugeye:

Looking it up in the dictionary, we get this:

solipsism

1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.

2. The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

This means that you are wrong about my understanding of solipsism, but it also means the dictionary has 2 definitions that differ from each other. The first to which I adhere and the second to which you adhere. Thus your failing to see the simple logic of my argument stems from 2 differing definitions of the same term - how annoying.

So unless you now refuse to concede my point given my definition then we should be settled and done here, no?

*So unless you now refuse to concede my point given my definition then we should be settled and done here, no?*

Yes we are done, however You've got to admit it was fun. ;)

I guess this can happen alot with words that have several definitions. BTW I looked it up as well. LOL..So I knew what you were refering too, this why the first rule, of any sentient being is "know thyself".

Godless.

Maybe reality and perception are one in the same. What you perceive is what is real to you thereby rendering the objective something unattainable. Make any sense?

Maybe reality and perception are one in the same. What you perceive is what is real to you thereby rendering the objective something unattainable. Make any sense?

Erm, that's what I've been advocating all along...read the thread please.

Maybe reality and perception are one in the same. What you perceive is what is real to you thereby rendering the objective something unattainable. Make any sense?

I like to call it the matrix theory :D

Actually, Godless, we ain't done.

With regards to the other definition of solipsism:

The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

You cannot refute that either. I'm not saying it's true, only saying that you cannot refute it.

You cannot refute that either. I'm not saying it's true, only saying that you cannot refute it.

Its actually the same (and just as futile) as the argument that u cannot prove anything!

Its actually the same (and just as futile) as the argument that u cannot prove anything!

Beyond the existence of the I to yourself alone that is...otherwise, give the man a cigar! :D

let me and try and appraoch this debate this way. when i was reading the imput this image memory came to me...so i thought i'd share it

ok, there were these amercian singers. i had thought them really plastic, false, and had written them off in my mind, so that every time these girls appeared on Tv i would see them the way i was feeling, ok?

one time i had taken some hallucinogen, and by chance i happened on a TV show where these girls were being interviewed....well, i SAw them COMPLETELY
differently ! My prception was totally different. They werer really lovely.

so do you see hwat i mean. this was a vast insight. i realizeed that very perception of things is dependent on how you feel about them. it actually creates how you see them
as with them, imagine the people full of hate for a group of people or one person--as with scapegoating. the more they look and feel like they do the more entrenched the feeling-perception rigidifies. it is truly a frightening thought!

.....this was a vast insight. i realizeed that very perception of things is dependent on how you feel about them. it actually creates how you see them
as with them, imagine the people full of hate for a group of people or one person--as with scapegoating. the more they look and feel like they do the more entrenched the feeling-perception rigidifies. it is truly a frightening thought!

So you're first now awakening to the fact that what's perceived is dependent on the observer?

....Or are you just now awakening to a much wider range of perceptions than you had thought possible?

In any case, it must here be observed that drugs aren't entirely good for nothing.

Jubatus~~"So you're first now awakening to the fact that what's perceived is dependent on the observer?....Or are you just now awakening to a much wider range of perceptions than you had thought possible?"


i will answer this way. From first taking LSd wehn 15, i had had such insights, yet i had felt that about those women years after those first insights. we are human.
sometimes i do it now, i see someone and i dislike them. i COULD see them hallucinogized and feel differently but i am feeling the way i am feeling when i am feeling it. that for me is being real. BUT, beCAUSE of those deep insisghts i have had via psychdelic inspiration, i couldn't see myself for example going to extremes, like neo-nazism, terrorism, stalking etc etc bullying.
where i think most isms go wrong i they assume that one can be totally 'enlightened' ALL the time. seeing 'right'....but for me i am a continuum...sometimes i feel shitty, sometimes i have an insisht, sometimes i feel this sometimes that. and to ACCEPT that for me is being human. it means you accept it also for others. in that you wont project an authorative pressure on them to be all-the-time-perfect.

""In anycase, it must be observed that drugs aren't entirely good for nothing"

My raison d'etra is to communicate that hallucinogens are a KEY for us to rekindle our interrelationship with Nature and each other.
the term 'drugs'.....as soon as one says that word to oneself or others it is LOADEd with derogatory meaning. it is a catchall word which lumps all errr drugs togther. i go wit author Dan Russell. (Shamanism and the Drug Propaganda) who claims that strictly speaking, 'drug' is an alkeloid...something that has been taken out...distilled, etc. whereas, eg., hallucinogenic vegetation is what it says...vegetation!

having said that, i had the most powerful insights after taking the drug LSD

When I was young, I always wonder if what I perceived as Red will be perceived by others as something else. Maybe in somebody's perception, his "Yellow" is my "Red".
Now, I gave up this idea as I realized I can NEVER prove or disprove it.
It is MY perception. So, your world is the world YOU perceive.

....but for me i am a continuum...sometimes i feel shitty, sometimes i have an insisht, sometimes i feel this sometimes that. and to ACCEPT that for me is being human. it means you accept it also for others. in that you wont project an authorative pressure on them to be all-the-time-perfect.

Aye, it's the simple observation that you (therein included your point of view) is everchanging and you can never be the same person twice.

My raison d'etra is to communicate that hallucinogens are a KEY for us to rekindle our interrelationship with Nature and each other.
the term 'drugs'.....as soon as one says that word to oneself or others it is LOADEd with derogatory meaning. it is a catchall word which lumps all errr drugs togther. i go wit author Dan Russell. (Shamanism and the Drug Propaganda) who claims that strictly speaking, 'drug' is an alkeloid...something that has been taken out...distilled, etc. whereas, eg., hallucinogenic vegetation is what it says...vegetation!

having said that, i had the most powerful insights after taking the drug LSD

Mark this; I never implied that drugs, to use the term, were viewed by me as they are by the major population as a strict "bad thing". There are indeed benefits to be gained from drugs, but I am also confident that drug abuse is exactly that because it, to put it bluntly, fucks you up. It does no good to gain "natural" insight into a holistic world view, if the instrument of that viewing, the brain, is chemically and physically violated.

Because there have been many experiments done which show that there is an objective universe out there (at some level).

No experiment can be done without a subject making subjective observations of the so-called objective thing being looked at.

I think that part of the trouble lies in the root of the word "objective," which is "object." This implies the (questionable notion of) separation from subject. At the same time, we consider "subjective" not in its root word sense - the observing entity is a subject that is involved with things - but instead assume that subjective means "in the mind," "up to the imagination," "carelessly tossed about without reference to anything." There is no need to adhere to these silly extremes. As with the structural coupling cited earlier, I posit this alternative view:

There is a Subject, of which we are made (and indeed, entirely contain) but of which we have only a partial perspective of, because the Subject's own self-ignorance is essential to its capacity for differentiation and thus relation. So what we call "objectivity" is a somewhat useful notion of separation because it allows for relation in new ways, but is not ontologically valid.

the subject object dichotomy is part of the same lineage that began when 'philosophical' thinking split Nature from the universe, dark from light, which in modern times has been modified as mind from body and brain from mind...

so our problem is language, and this vast backlog of propaganda, which is permeating all our institutions.

How can you have an outside without an inside? just think for two minutes. can you imagine what an outside without an inside could be like.........?
it doesn't even make sense does it? For to KNOW an outside there HAs to BE an inside

change that to subject and object.

what materialistic-mechanistic science did/does is pretend that it can be soley objective. it banished subjectivity. This is reflected now very prominently. At these forums if people speak abut subjective experiences to science advocates the subjectivity is sriously questioned and challenged as not being as good as objectivity. I.e the latter is the king.

so we thus have a world of surfaces. shiny toys including shiny weaponry, yet are totally impoverished about inner feelings, and thus resonating with inner feeling of other peoples and Nature

Se we need to examine this...and rekindle this VASt loss. re awaken it