Solving Solipsism

Author: Sum1hugme ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 48
  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 586
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    If I can know for certainty that I think, then that necessarily means that I am thinking in time, since I am having the thought now. The act of thinking necessarily implies an external world where time exists within which I may have a thought. Therefore, I can know with the same certainty that I think, that there is an external world to my thought that at least has time.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 4,163
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Sum1hugme
    Solipsism is self defeating anyway.

    Because to transfer such data relies upon experiences that exceed the self.


  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,199
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Sum1hugme
    There is no solution for soft solipsism. We cannot verify the "realness" of reality without presuming that it is. It really doesn't matter however because even if this is all illusory we can still learn the rules and optimize our experience. 
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,793
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    A door, when closed is not; it is a wall. When open, it is not, either. It is an opening in the wall, thus, the empty space is not a door.  That's solipsism.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 1,340
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @Sum1hugme
    If I can know for certainty that I think, then that necessarily means that I am thinking in time, since I am having the thought now. The act of thinking necessarily implies an external world where time exists within which I may have a thought.
    No. You haven't substantiated that time is outside of your thoughts. How is your perception of time any less constructed than your awareness of your conception?


  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 586
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @Athias
    Because I'm having the thought in time. Having a thought necessitates the time within which to have it. Which means that there is an external world where time exists; at least the now moment within which I'm having this thought exists. 
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 1,340
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @Sum1hugme
    Because I'm having the thought in time. Having a thought necessitates the time within which to have it. Which means that there is an external world where time exists; at least the now moment within which I'm having this thought exists. 
    Yes, because of your perception of time. You think that how experience time is not informed by your conceptions?

  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 586
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @Athias
    It seems to me that a necessary precondition of thought is time within which to have that thought. It can't be the other way around.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 1,340
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @Sum1hugme
    It seems to me that a necessary precondition of thought is time within which to have that thought. It can't be the other way around.
    First, "seem" is never an argument. Second, it is necessary for your argument to extend its conclusion. Hence my stating:

    You haven't substantiated that time is outside of your thoughts.
    You're applying circular reasoning. Your premise is the same as your conclusion.


  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,732
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Sum1hugme
    If I can know for certainty that I think, then that necessarily means that I am thinking in time, since I am having the thought now. The act of thinking necessarily implies an external world where time exists within which I may have a thought. Therefore, I can know with the same certainty that I think, that there is an external world to my thought that at least has time.
    Time is not necessarily "external".

    Consider the possibility that there are multiple "layers" of "thinking".

    Time might merely be the "top" "layer".
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,732
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    You're applying circular reasoning. Your premise is the same as your conclusion.
    Well stated.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,732
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Sum1hugme
    It seems to me that a necessary precondition of thought is time within which to have that thought. It can't be the other way around.
    A "necessary precondition" is not the same as "external".
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,732
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    No. You haven't substantiated that time is outside of your thoughts. How is your perception of time any less constructed than your awareness of your conception?
    Well stated.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,732
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @fauxlaw
    A door, when closed is not; it is a wall. When open, it is not, either. It is an opening in the wall, thus, the empty space is not a door.  That's solipsism.
    Are you suggesting that a "movable wall" and or an "intermittent opening in a wall" are not "valid concepts"?
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,732
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @secularmerlin
    There is no "solution" for soft solipsism. We cannot verify the "realness" of reality without presuming that it is. It really doesn't matter however because even if this is all illusory we can still learn the rules and optimize our experience. 
    Well stated.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,732
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @zedvictor4
    Solipsism is self defeating anyway.
    Please explain.

    Because to transfer such data relies upon experiences that exceed the self.
    Data can only be transferred WITHIN a system.

    Are you perhaps familiar with Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems? [LINK]
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,732
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Sum1hugme
    Epistemology is what the boards of our house are made of. What is outside our house is noumenon.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 1,340
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @3RU7AL
    Data can only be transferred WITHIN a system.
    Well stated.

  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,793
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @3RU7AL
    Not at all. I'm suggesting that when a door is closed, it's a wall. When a door is open, there is no visible substance; it's an empty space. Thus, we make use of what is not to pass through to what is, another space that is not empty.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,732
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @fauxlaw
    In this specific metaphor are you comparing (as opposed to contrasting) the concept of "solipsism" to the concept of "door"?
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,793
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @3RU7AL
    Now you're getting it. Nothing is nothing, and nothing will be nothing.

    The flaw in the belief that nothing results in something, as in, the beginning of the universe is that there is no beginning of that expanse. Otherwise, there would be no eternity, which is not merely time proceeding forever into the future without it having an infinite past, as well, i.e., no Big Bang. Maybe a bang to start this galaxy, but this galaxy, our Milky Way, is not synonymous with the universe at large. New stars, and even new galaxies, are being formed all the time, aways have, and always will.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 4,163
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @3RU7AL
    Data can only be transferred within a system.
    This is non-specific.

    What do you mean exactly?

    The universe is a system.

    So if one cannot ever be independent of a system, then solipsism is solved.


  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 563
    3
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @3RU7AL @Athias @fauxlaw @secularmerlin @zedvictor4
    The exact opposite:
    Identity is an emergent property of evolution.

    What do you guys think? Is there any improvements to make if possible? 

    Sorry Sum1hugme, I could only put in 5 recipients, but I know you’ll get a notification anyway. 
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 1,340
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @Reece101
    Identity is an emergent property of evolution.
    How so?
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,793
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Reece101
    Identity is an emergent property of evolution.
    I believe the exact opposite; that identity is eternal.