Solipsism is False
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
My claim is that the claim of solipsism is false.
I am using solipsism as a blanket term anybody who doesn't think reality is what it seems. This includes: brain in the vat, the matrix, only mind in the universe, etc.
I will attempt to rebut your specific claim as well as all of the claims that generally arise in this topic.
Good Luck.
Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that "I am the only mind which exists," or "My mental states are the only mental states." However, the sole survivor of a nuclear holocaust might truly come to believe in either of these propositions without thereby being a solipsist. Solipsism is therefore more properly regarded as the doctrine that, in principle, "existence" means for me my existence and that of my mental states. Existence is everything that I experience -- physical objects, other people, events and processes -- anything that would commonly be regarded as a constituent of the space and time in which I coexist with others and is necessarily construed by me as part of the content of my consciousness. For the solipsist, it is not merely the case that he believes that his thoughts, experiences, and emotions are, as a matter of contingent fact, the only thoughts, experiences, and emotions. Rather, the solipsist can attach no meaning to the supposition that there could be thoughts, experiences, and emotions other than his own. In short, the true solipsist understands the word "pain," for example, to mean "my pain." He cannot accordingly conceive how this word is to be applied in any sense other than this exclusively egocentric one.
Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
to have information in your mind
to be certain
Be absolutely certain or sure about something.
Firm conviction that something is the case.
the state of being completely confident or having no doubt about something
Facts provided or learned about something or someone.
If you're certain that you exist based on facts, you then can assume that the 'self' you think you are and what that potentially simulated self "knows" is known to the actual self.
If you're certain that you exist based on facts,
A thing that is known or proved to be true.
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information
You are the only thing you know to be real but you will go insane if you don't play along with the simulation,
so I beg you do not indulge in your accurate but schizophrenic delusions that all is a lie
You are not your fingers. You are not even your brain, you assume you are your brain based on science solely available inside what is entirely plausible to be a simulation
Do not for a moment think that Solipsism means that you are everyone
Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
to be certain
Firm conviction that something is the case.
Facts provided or learned about something or someone.
What we see here is that for one to 'know' something is entirely contingent on there being an entity
Everything else is knowledge that what your original self that assumed the memories, knowledge and quality of application of logic you possess were sufficient to reach 'truth'.
I will now word this backwards so it makes a lot more sense why Pro is incorrect. You do not need Pro or Con to be real in this debate for it to happen but you may well feel 'certain' of the 'information' except for one thing... Who is certain? This is the part missing in the anti-solipsist's equation and where I will defend irrefutably against a flipping of semantics onto me:
Pro will state:
Everything about the reality you 'know' to be around you is contingent on you existing but you are not contingent on that reality being anything other than you, alone.
Consistency is all well and good if the things that are consistent with one another are 'knowable' to be anything beyond one's self being certain of the rest.
Pro speaks of objective truth, Pro speaks of a truth outside of perception and Con stands before you, a puppet of your simulated reality, and states that you know what you know as you have certainty of its truth.
You know because you know because you know because you know because...
There is constant attempt from Pro (if he exists, which you can never truly know) to either make this about 'me' instead of 'you', reader, or to single out some kind of source of knowing everything that requires us to first 'know' that thing is true beyond any doubt.
The debate is that Solipsism is false, not that Solipsism is unknowable. This means even if you don't know it's false, it can be false and Con needs to stop that being your conclusion, reader. Treat Pro and I as inanimate AI for this debate, we are constructed with in the Matrix of 'you'. Who are you? Well you know a self, but that experienced self is only able to be certain based on other certainties all based on the very sight, hearing and other such gained knowledge that Pro is trying to say 'yeah well a blind person doesn't know things can be seen' to. Guess what? Blind people can't know things can be seen, yeah thanks Pro high five for helping Con deliver to the reader, the truth of Solipsism.
Pro starts off with a fairly reasonable debunking of solipsism. Firstly as a proof that reality is real (even if your not perceiving it correctly), the second is that other sentient minds indistinguishable from his own exist.
Cons primary counter argument specifically relevant to the debate premise appears to be that for things to be true, they have to be true to you; and as a result, you can’t wholly tell if more than you exists - as you existing is the only thing that can be established.
Pro starts off with picking our specific off-the-cuff claims con made, about the nature of reality. He asks con to prove that he lives in a simulation, and whether it’s a delusion (he points out if it’s consistent, it can’t be a delusion). Imo these points are side tracks.
Con rebuttal here drops a major point: who made the simulation? Without an ultimate maker isn’t there infinite regress? This seems on it face paradoxical.
The second rebuttal point, which becomes the thread underpinning the rest of this debate is the role of knowledge.
Specifically con points out that you can know that other minds within this universe exist - because knowledge is based on observation rather than certainty. It is more of a scientific approach that once you start accurately describing reality - you can form knowledge that other minds exist.
Cons reply - seems more fixated on the role of truth and certainty. Specifically arguing that we can’t tell for certain that reality exists - and only that we ourselves exist.
In my opinion this misses the point of cons opening and secondary argument: leaving these points unrefuted. Namely: that reality is consistent meaning that you can test it, measure it - and that forms the basis of the knowledge you can have about that reality: and that whether reality is as we observe or something else. Those measurements still indicate that there our other minds.
I don’t think Con is wrong here. Just that he’s arguing over pros main point. Pro reiterates the consistency of reality - and both these arguments in his follow up. There is more here - which goes into more detail about brain in vats, but in most cases they are just reiterations of the previous point.
Cons reply here - was actually more of a non response. He acknowledges the consistency of reality, but fails to target the conclusion pro draws from it: and imo the final rounds follow this same form.
My initial reading of this debate was skeptical about pros position: as he took on more burden of proof than he needed to. However, rather than this debate being fought on the battlefield of reality, it appears pro made the battle about knowledge and what it means to “know” something.
Pros case boils down to us knowing other minds exists through observation, even if we don’t necessarily know what that reality is.
In an epistemological sense, I don’t feel that con grasped the implications of this line of attack : pro effectively pushed con into the position where he was required to refute empiricism - which he did not.
As a result, pro did enough to actually show I know other minds exists in the same way I know gravity exists. Cons response is mainly aimed at requiring knowledge to be certain to be knowledge - and he doesn’t do enough to either establish this, or refute cons argument about practical knowledge in reality.
As a result, pro set a premise where I know other minds exists, because knowledge is based on my observations of reality - rather than having to be absolutely certain: and cons didn’t make much of an argument in this reality that for me to be able to know something, it must be certain.
There may have been able to be more of a Clash about the intent of knowledge, or making a special case about philosophical knowledge in this case, but as there wasn’t, I have to award arguments to pro.
pro establishes BOP through consistent interaction based on our perception of reality.
Con argues that self is more defined through understanding and knowing of self apart from reality
Most of the arguement i feel is picking at straws and a few metaphors that went unaddressed, con in his attempt to show the uncertainty of knowing establishes that he himself does exist in not affirming himself with "Simulation" and that we are not "Everyone" however i feel he failed to address in what way a person could be "Everyone" in regards to interdependance on the "Simulation" we may or may not be involved in.
Pro does not adequately address the "Detachment" which is associated with solipsism in the sense of meaning, not perception or observation of surroundings.
At the last round pro misspelled vain... oi!
In order for con to convience a person associated with reality he had to link sources that we associate with reality to prove his point of our "simulation" I feel he could have proved his point better with more psychological links instead of definitions.
Pls vote if possible
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pilot // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con for arguments, sources, and S/G
>Reason for Decision: Pro pointed out that reality is consistent, and that's where the bulk of pro's argument stemmed from. That is a good point in and of itself, but Con pointed out that we (or I) cannot truly know that we aren't in a simulation. Pro's only rebuttal to that point was to challenge Con to prove we (or I) are in a simulation. It's my belief that Con didn't need to prove that we (I) are actually in a simulation for that point to stick. The point of Cons argument was that I can only rely on my senses to obtain any information on whether I am or am not in a simulation, and since my senses themselves could be a product of the simulation, it automatically rules them out as being a reliable source of knowledge on said simulation. Outside of my senses, I have no other means of obtaining any information. I can only rely on my unreliable senses. Con also made a convincing argument about the difference between knowledge and truth. Throughout much of the discussion, it seemed like Pro was asserting that solipsism means that only one mind exists, and all other beings are just extensions of that one mind. I felt that Con did a good job dispelling that point of view by pointing out that solipsism means it can't be known whether one mind exists or not. That, to me seems like the true meaning of solipsism. Pro's idea of solipsism actually seems more like nihilism than anything. Nice job by both participants.
>Reason for Mod Action: The justification for argument points is sufficient; however, no justification is given for any of the other points awarded. A vote must justify clearly all those points it awards. The voter can cast a sufficient vote by explaining all the points they choose to award.
************************************************************************
Please revote without sources and s&g or explain the votes.
Not talking about the debate, but rather a bunch of PMs that RM sent me after the debate.
Very Mature, I suppose that was your way of rebutting me since you couldn't get past A = A which even Matt Slick eventually could do.
Thanks for the debate sir. Even if we disagree hard. :)
I find that vacuous because it's a neutral position when the evidence is far from neutral.
This stems from a recurring problem in philosophy.
People tend to have a poor standard for how they should falsify claims of existence.
Furthermore, people tend to have a poor standard for proving nonexistence claims as well.
We get all the evidence we need from our perception to verify reality. Even if reality was not how we see it (which technically, it's not depending on how you look at it. I can elaborate on this if you wish), the one thing that we can say for sure is that it's consistent. The law of gravity doesn't change, so even if we're not perceiving gravity correctly, we are perceiving it congruently. Therefore, as long as our response to gravity as we see it translate into our intended action in objective reality, then it doesn't matter if the picture isn't perfectly attuned.
So if we can get accurate information out of a Real or Fake reality, then the information is necessarily true by the metric we use for survival and general navigation of reality.
Solipsism: the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist. Solipsism doesn't necessarily deny that other minds exist, it just means that outside the scope of your senses, nothing can be known. From a solipsistic point of view, any evidence that could potentially disprove the existence of others is unreliable, just as any evidence that proves the existence of others is unreliable.
to reference a comedian. "The scientists are running the train, and we'd get there a lot quicker... but the rest of you are slowing us down. Sometimes I wish I could just pull the little pin thing on the cart."
Yeah, I joke about it. But solipsism actually makes me sad to the point where I almost wish nobody discovered it. We could be making leaps and bounds in philosophy right now, but instead we got people telling us we live in the matrix.
Also, what is the evidence for you huge claim that "it's an indisputable fact"
Light as a feather in fact ;)
Slippery slope huh? I'm skeptical of that claim. Could you define what you think a slippery slope is and how you think claims against solipsism fall into your definition?
What kind of solipsism do you believe in?
Do you think you're the only mind?
If so then why am I disagreeing with you?
Are you living in logical discourse?
If so then I beat you anyway because I am you.
Furthermore, if I am you, then me not believing in the claim means that you don't believe in the claim.
We win :)
Just a heads up to Pro. In my mind, solipsism is an indisputable fact. It's gonna be a slippery slope for you to climb to convince me otherwise, and I hope your opener was lite, because I saw nothing that moved me.
Haha I know right!! I find this argument annoying and fruitless also.. Philosophical blah.
If "something" is capable of creating you instantly with false memories, physics is already long gone haha.
I will admit that one is annoying. But my argument would be that if everything was created X seconds ago, there would have to be some point during that event that I can feel myself being formed because it couldn't happen instantaneously, there would be some physics involved.
I would also ask the person how I got all of my memories in such an accurate way without them first going through my senses. It seems to me that if the world was created X seconds ago, that it would be like the a dystopia movie where my memories aren't matching up right. I would also ask what force could possibly do something like that and ask for evidence of a force that could necessitate this popping into reality.
But it is a really annoying rebuttal, lol. I think it's the reason debaters have historically countered solipsists by walking up to them and knocking them on the head.
2) - What about the common argument of "what if you were created x seconds ago with your faculties intact"..
How would you demonstrate the consistency of reality, without yet having comparable events from this new reality? All of the "known past events" were planted and they may or may not actually be consistent with your new reality, rendering comparison impossible - right?
Wow, interesting topic & opener. I'm anxious to see this one unfold!