Instigator / Pro
7
1684
rating
15
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#1136

Metaphysical Solipsism is Most Likely Correct

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0

After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

semperfortis
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1553
rating
24
debates
56.25%
won
Description

I had to create a new debate, because you can not edit the debate to add a contender after you publish it!

Metaphysical Solipsism: The philosophy of subjective idealism that asserts that nothing exists externally to the mind and that the external, physical world and other people are representatives of the mind and have no independent existence.

No Kritiks

BoP is shared; Con must also provide evidence to show that the resolution is most likely untrue.

R1: Opening arguments
R2: Rebuttals
R3: Rebuttals and defence
R4: Rebuttals/defence (no new arguments)

-->
@Barney

Thanks for taking the time to vote and your detailed anaylsis.

Related but not part of my decision:
The resolution is really hard to disprove, even if the outcome has no bearing on our lives. It’s similar to pointing out that altruists enjoy doing good things so aren’t true altruists; as if that would in any way corrupt the good work they do (it’d actually be pretty creepy if they hated helping other people, and did it full of resentment).

However it's fine for philosophy explore in these directions.

---RFD 1 of 2---
Gist:
Con drops a lot of points even stating he would defend his case against rebuttals in a future round that he did not publish. Even without this, pro was pulling ahead, perhaps due to con trying to rule of the complexity of the mind, which no theory I know of rejects. Were the resolution the MS is true, I would probably mark this a tie, as is, the argument that it is the most likely hypothesis (non-testable, so I won’t call it a theory) held up.

1. Epistemological Parsimony
The only certainty is that we exist, and Occam’s Razor says we should trust that certainty.
Con gives a tentative concession, “I am in agreement with Pro that the existence of the mind is a most certain and irrefutable fact. I also agree that ‘the external reality which is said to exist [without] the mind does not share the same certainty.’” But he goes on to assert that Agnosism is the most likely, we just can’t know... Which dances around the issue, rather than actually giving a hypothesis which can be likely or not (even if it is the best to follow, it’s not one that makes any claims on its likelihood of being true). Con moves on to trying to twist pro’s strongly supported case into a didit fallacy... It’s grasping at straws.

2. Monistic Idealism
Surprised to see ghosts referenced here (that they can’t touch stuff as evidence for the mind and body being distinct), but it was a nice break from the hard stuff...
Anyway, con challenges that this focuses on the mind-body problem, which MS rejects the existence of the second half. This was a strong point, which both missed (pro opted to respond to other parts, and con did not extend his best piece in light of that).

---RFD 2 of 2---
3. MS isn't consistent with observation
Between dreams and reality seeming to not be glitchy, con makes some solid points.
Pro counters with reminding us that con has not justified the need for these things to exist outside the mind. Then moves on to the bigger issue that (simplifying it down) we don’t remember our dreams or understand them if we do, but still have them.
Con basically says the mind being complex and layered defeats MS, but I missed how and why it would do this.

4. The existence of an objective reality is more likely
Short, but sweet; even using The Matrix as an additional alternative. Sadly, pre-refuted with the explanation of how Occam’s Razor applies to MS.
After that it basically morphs into repeated content from other argument lines.

---

Arguments: pro
See above review of key points.

Sources: pro
Con only started really trying to support his case with external evidence in his final round (as much as I enjoyed that Matrix clip),

S&G: tie
Not penalizing, but con’s interest shortage showed in R2 when he ceased applying special formatting to his case. Pro on the other hand offered a steady stream (but not spammed) of reliable sources giving extra insight to his case. Of note I should point to Spinoza’s Modal Metaphysics, which potentially offered a path to falsifiability. Additionally the article “Conscious and Unconscious Memory Systems” was leveraged very well to demonstrate layers of the subconscious, defending against attacks to the mind being limited only by the conscious.

Conduct: pro
Missed round.

-->
@semperfortis

Sorry buddy. I lost interest.

-->
@David
@Barney
@Ramshutu

If any of you have time could you vote on this debate? Thank you.

-->
@billbatard

I don't necessarily buy into it. It's an interesting position though. Solipsism has been philosophically obstinate -- it seems ridiculous but it's very difficult to disprove.

we construct our own realities, we believe what we want to, that doesn't mean objective reality isn't a thing

Pity a 2 month long
debate ended this way.

-->
@Cogent_Cognizer

Yes! I have been reading it.

-->
@semperfortis

You may be interested in this debate I started: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1216/the-self-is-god-unrated-practice-debate
It's almost over as my opponent just needs to post a concluding round. A lot of it is based around solipsism.

TBH just forgot about the rule. A simple solution would be for me to not do any defense in my next post.

-->
@bmdrocks21

Yes haha.

-->
@semperfortis

Someone has been reading too much Descartes lol