[Everyone's] favorite topic: Solipsism...

[Received]

It's really more of a blend between the two. What I take from solipsism is that out of all of this physical world, only the self exists. God is apart from the world. He can't be seen, felt, heard, smelled, or tasted. As Berkeleyan idealism states, the physical world is only an illusion, but it claims that other people exist too. It's like we're having a collective dream.

If only the self is real and the world is imaginary, what do you mean when you say that God is apart from the world?

And again, how do you get from self only to God as well? I mean, solipsists can at least claim the self is the only thing that exists because of introspection; but to claim that God exists implies something outside the self, which means the negation of solipsism and the opening up of the possibility for something external to the self -- even if everything else is illusory. How do you make this leap?

My view is that nothing I experience is real. However, I am not the one producing the experience.

From what I get with BI, even if God produces the world, this doesn't make the world unreal. Our reality is simply God's dream.

The notion that everything in the world is a production of the mind solves the mind-body problem. There is no need to explain the connection of body and mind if the body is a product of the mind. No other explanation makes sense to me. To say that the mind is the product of the body doesn't sit well with me. I just don't see how a physical object could ever produce something like a mind.

That's good and well, except for the fact that you're making a significant leap from "self only" to "the world is a production of the mind." It sounds like, based on this paragraph, that you're making this assumption for pragmatic reasons -- because it fits better theoretically. But this pragmatism is inconsistent with solipsism (self only); you can't get to "the world is a production of the mind" without foregoing solipsism, and you can't be a solipsist if you believe in BI. You can't blend the two without twisting the meaning of both.

Some believe in an immaterial soul which works in harmony with the body, but that has problems too. There's no explanation for how one could affect the other. If we can trust science (and the dualism explanation would say we could), all our actions seem to be based on the body, with no extra input from in invisible soul. Science tells us that changes in chemicals and electric pulses in the brain cause changes in the mind. No unseen changes in the soul cause physical changes in the brain.

Technically there's no explanation of how one physical object can cause another (see Hume's concept of Custom in Enquiry/Human Understanding). And science doesn't tell us that electric pulses in the brain cause the mind; materialism does, with which the assumption that science explains everything, and the assumption that the physical world is all there is.

Dualism is alive and well:

The Soul Hypothesis: Investigations into the Existence of the Soul: Stewart Goetz, Mark C. Baker: 9781441152244: Amazon.com: Books

http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Brain-Ne...305688&sr=1-1&keywords=the+mind+and+the+brain

 

[Solitary Refinement]

Well, your premise is that I don´t exist. I don´t know how to deal with this situation. I don´t know how non-existent persons behave.

Just like real people, I would assume. Except with some very small differences, perhaps.

In my dreams, people act relatively normal. But it is often hard to get their attention. I could dance around naked and they would walk right by like I don't exist.

And when I wake up, I find myself in a similar situation. I speak plainly and audibly, and no one hears me. A man sitting right next to me asks where I am, as if I am invisible. They would probably notice if I danced around naked, but I haven't tried yet.

So there are people?

It would get tiring very quickly to write "the illusions of people" over and over. It's much easier just to call them people.

Thanks for giving your definition!

I'm not sure what other definition one could have. Is it contestable that a person could have thoughts and feelings and still not exist? I don't think so.

So you are considering my thoughts and feelings being mine, and consequently you consider me existent?

Considering, sure. Convinced? Not so much. All I know is that I have thoughts and feelings. I have no way of knowing if there is any life behind the words I'm reading on the screen from the alias of "quatona." Perhaps some day we will be able to share our minds via technology. It would make your existence seem much more likely. But then again, those "alien" thoughts I'd be experiencing could be from anywhere.

 

[Solitary Refinement]

If only the self is real and the world is imaginary, what do you mean when you say that God is apart from the world?

The world is what I can experience. I cannot experience God. He is not some illusion being fed to me by my senses. He can, however, be the producer of my sensations.

And again, how do you get from self only to God as well? I mean, solipsists can at least claim the self is the only thing that exists because of introspection; but to claim that God exists implies something outside the self, which means the negation of solipsism and the opening up of the possibility for something external to the self -- even if everything else is illusory. How do you make this leap?

From what I get with BI, even if God produces the world, this doesn't make the world unreal. Our reality is simply God's dream.

I hate to reuse the same movie metaphor so many times, but it fits here.

In The Matrix, when Neo is placed inside of a computer simulation, he asks, "Is this real?"

Morpheus answers in his usually vague, philosophical fashion. "It depends on what you call real," he says. "Is it something you can feel, smell, or taste?"

But I say bull. If the sensations are being fed to you by a computer, it is creating a false reality.

Same thing here. If this is "God's dream," it's a false reality. Reality is something which exists on its own. If no one were experiencing it, it would still exist. An illusion, though, can only exist in the mind.

That's good and well, except for the fact that you're making a significant leap from "self only" to "the world is a production of the mind." It sounds like, based on this paragraph, that you're making this assumption for pragmatic reasons -- because it fits better theoretically. But this pragmatism is inconsistent with solipsism (self only); you can't get to "the world is a production of the mind" without foregoing solipsism, and you can't be a solipsist if you believe in BI. You can't blend the two without twisting the meaning of both.

The world being the production of the mind is exactly what solipsism proposes. Just like the mind can produce a fake human being to converse with, it can create a false world. I'm not saying that there is a literal world being created by mind power, but there's a series of senses firing in my mind to make this world seem real to me.

Technically there's no explanation of how one physical object can cause another (see Hume's concept of Custom in Enquiry/Human Understanding). And science doesn't tell us that electric pulses in the brain cause the mind; materialism does, with which the assumption that science explains everything, and the assumption that the physical world is all there is.

Dualism is alive and well:

The Soul Hypothesis: Investigations into the Existence of the Soul: Stewart Goetz, Mark C. Baker: 9781441152244: Amazon.com: Books

The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force: Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Sharon Begley: 9780060988470: Amazon.com: Books

Science shows clearly that chemical and electrical signals trigger emotions and experiences. If you're low in serotonin, you will feel depressed. If the gap in the center of your brain grows, you will get schizophrenia. Cut the connection between your left and right hemispheres but leaving both intact, your mind will be split in half, unable to act in unison.

The question I ask, though, is whether or not science--a study of this world--can be trusted. If the world is an illusion, then science is founded on a lie.

 

[quatona]

Just like real people, I would assume. Except with some very small differences, perhaps.

I think you misunderstood my point.
There is a disconnect in your approach. You talk to me like I were a real person, yet this conversation permanently requires me to accept your idea that I don´t exist in the same way you do.
While you are asking everyone to accept the premise that you do exist (for which none of us have any more reason than you would have for accepting that we exist) you do not do the same in return.

When I say I don´t know how a non-existent person behaves I don´t mean "I don´t know what it looks from the outside", I mean "I can´t, for purposes of these discussions, pretend to myself that I don´t exist." Yet, this is what your idea requires me to do.

In my dreams, people act relatively normal. But it is often hard to get their attention. I could dance around naked and they would walk right by like I don't exist.

And when I wake up, I find myself in a similar situation. I speak plainly and audibly, and no one hears me. A man sitting right next to me asks where I am, as if I am invisible. They would probably notice if I danced around naked, but I haven't tried yet.

Well, you write a post on CF, and me - as well as others - put quite some effort in responding to you.
How much attention do you need? And at least nobody so far has told you directly that you do not exist (as you do to others). That´s quite some benefit of the doubt you are receiving there.

It would get tiring very quickly to write "the illusions of people" over and over. It's much easier just to call them people.

If you´d type it out every time you´d probably become more aware of the inconsistencies in your approach.
After all, the very point of your thread is the very difference between "people" and "illusions of people". The fact that you feel that in practice it makes no significant difference is very telling.

I'm not sure what other definition one could have. Is it contestable that a person could have thoughts and feelings and still not exist? I don't think so.

IIRC in a previous post you entertained the possibility that you don´t exist, either, and your thoughts and feelings were actually God´s.

Considering, sure. Convinced? Not so much.

Convinced enough to talk to me as though I were a real person.

All I know is that I have thoughts and feelings. I have no way of knowing if there is any life behind the words I'm reading on the screen from the alias of "quatona."

All I know is that I have thoughts and feelings. I have no way of knowing if there is any life behind the words I'm reading on the screen from the alias of "Solitary Refinement".
Let´s just skip roles for a moment. Let´s pretend I were the person proposing that I am the only one who exists, and you were the one who has feelings and thoughts yet is being told he doesn´t exist.

Perhaps some day we will be able to share our minds via technology.

You mean we will be able to experience the thoughts of others as if they were our own? Haven´t you above - by definition - excluded this possibility?
That´s one of the problems with your criteria. On the one hand accepting that others exist would require you to experience their awareness, on the other hand even then you would - by your own admission - interprete it as your own.

 

[quatona]

The question I ask, though, is whether or not science--a study of this world--can be trusted. If the world is an illusion, then science is founded on a lie.

Well, since this illusory world would be all you have and would be that which you have to deal with, science (as a descriptor and explainer how this world - be it real or illusory - works) would be as good as it gets, wouldn´t it?
If you consider this world to be real science can be trusted as a reliable method to explain the real world from within this real world.
If you consider this world to be an illusion science can be trusted as a reliable method to explain this illusory world from within.
Why would you expect science - as a criterium for it being "reliable" - to explain something that, by your own premise, doesn´t even exist?

 

[juvenissun]

Hello. I'm new here. I am a Solipsist. Or...at least I think that I am. I know this topic drives a lot of [people] mad, but I will take a chance for the sake of curiosity, and possibly clarity.

Please excuse me while I elaborate on what kind of ideas I hold. First off, I am not entirely sure of much of anything, so it might be more accurate to say that I have one foot in than to say I'm a full Solipsist.

For [those] who don't know, solipsism is a position of philosophy which claims that I am all that exists. That is, the self is the only real substance in the world. All other people and things are mere illusions produced by the mind of the one that exists.

Buddhism goes one step further: You don't even exist. Nothing really exist.

Willing to consider that?

 

[Received]

The world is what I can experience. I cannot experience God. He is not some illusion being fed to me by my senses. He can, however, be the producer of my sensations.

So you believe in something you can't experience, but consider a lie what you can experience?

I hate to reuse the same movie metaphor so many times, but it fits here.

In The Matrix, when Neo is placed inside of a computer simulation, he asks, "Is this real?"

Morpheus answers in his usually vague, philosophical fashion. "It depends on what you call real," he says. "Is it something you can feel, smell, or taste?"

But I say bull. If the sensations are being fed to you by a computer, it is creating a false reality.

Same thing here. If this is "God's dream," it's a false reality. Reality is something which exists on its own. If no one were experiencing it, it would still exist. An illusion, though, can only exist in the mind.

If! Methinks if you really grasped this "if" that you'd see where I'm coming from. What makes you leap to the "if" regarding God being real and the universe not being real? Why not leap to the "if" that God isn't real and the universe is real? Or that God is real and the universe is real?

You're right: the world *could* be an illusion. But remember that Neo had a deep existential sense that things weren't right, that he didn't fit, and therefore had a psychological *reason* to question his surroundings. Do you have that same sense here? If not, you have no justification for not believing your intuition and accepting the universe as a real something.

The world being the production of the mind is exactly what solipsism proposes. Just like the mind can produce a fake human being to converse with, it can create a false world. I'm not saying that there is a literal world being created by mind power, but there's a series of senses firing in my mind to make this world seem real to me.

No, Berkeleyan idealism (or idealism in another form) is the idea that the world is a product of mind, not solipsism. The latter is simply the belief that the self is all that exists and/or can be proven.

How do you reach the conclusion that the world isn't real and that there is only a series of senses being fired at your mind to make things appear real? Neo only knew this because he experienced the Matrix. Do you even have any inkling, any existential sense of unease (like Neo) that things aren't real like everyone else says they are?

Science shows clearly that chemical and electrical signals trigger emotions and experiences. If you're low in serotonin, you will feel depressed. If the gap in the center of your brain grows, you will get schizophrenia. Cut the connection between your left and right hemispheres but leaving both intact, your mind will be split in half, unable to act in unison.

I fail to see how this rules out dualism. No reasonable dualism denies the power of the brain to produce all types of sensations and moods. The question is whether *consciousness* is something more than these brain states. And it so happens that the current state of neuroscience can't explain consciousness (which isn't at all a proof of dualism).