-->
@FLRW
great article
with no conclusion
Solipsism
Posts
Total:
103
-->
@3RU7AL
Solipsism does not claim that nothing is empirically verifiable but rather that only one's mind can be known to exist. The idea is founded upon the concept that anything a person can conceive must conceive within their mind and any idea within a person's mind is subjective to interpretation or perception. Therefore, nothing a person can conceptualize can be known as objective but rather their subjective interpretation. Ultimately, it denotes the idea that objective reality is rather an illusion as it rests upon the concept of a collective subjective reality. As we know, when many people believe in something it doesn't make it true but rather known.
-->
@3RU7AL
The article is not meant to have a conclusion but rather to stimulate a conversation, there's not really a point in making a conclusion within a discourse as it's meant for the collaboration of others, I was intending for you to provide your insights, which you have yet to do. I'm merely trying to stimulate the dialogue to recognize questions, and then solve them together. If you intended on receiving conclusion without your participation, you should read an official publication and not be engaging in a discourse which requires collaboration. Thus far, my contribution has been stimulating the idea of the utilities of Solipsism.
-->
@3RU7AL
your response is verification
You cant prove that my response exists.
-->
@3RU7AL
@Best.Korea
I believe you're both misunderstanding what it is to know and what it is to be true. My act of responding does not prove your existence, it merely proves I either believe in your existence or that my time is worthwhile. I spend time chatting with AI that I know not to exist the same as I would with you so my act of responding to you does not prove my belief in your existence, but merely that it is intriguing to me, or worth my time.
To know means to believe with certainty, to be true means to correlate with.
Example:
When I read a thermometer, I can say I know that it's 70 degrees outside, but then the thermometer turns out to be broken and it's actually 68, I knew it was 70 degrees outside, but I was still incorrect.
The word true on the other hand means to correlate with. For instance, if we were to say it is objectively 68 degrees outside, we would be correlating objective reality with the temperature and therefore it is true with objectivity. Similarly, we could say it feels 80 degrees outside and that could be subjectively true and might differ between the individual whether or not it feels 80 degrees outside; one person may say it feels 75, while another says 85, and both can be true subjectively.
-->
@Critical-Tim
objective reality is rather an illusion as it rests upon
you couldn't be more wrong
the logical conclusion of a solipsist axiom
is that even an illusion requires substance
zero substance
zero illusion
-->
@Best.Korea
You cant prove that my response exists.
i just did
-->
@Critical-Tim
REAL TRUE FACT = EMPIRICALLY VERIFIABLE (WITH A CONFIDENCE OF AT LEAST 2 SIGMA) AND OR LOGICALLY NECESSARY
EVERYTHING ELSE IS OPINION
-->
@3RU7AL
REAL TRUE FACT = EMPIRICALLY VERIFIABLE (WITH A CONFIDENCE OF AT LEAST 2 SIGMA) AND OR LOGICALLY NECESSARYEVERYTHING ELSE IS OPINION
I thought I did a rather splendid job at explaining myself, but you clearly don't understand what I'm trying to say.
"To know means to believe with certainty, to be true means to correlate with."
I am trying to tell you that there is no such thing as truth itself but rather truth is transitive, it must have something to reference. Your example you are referencing objective reality or empirically verifiable facts in which case you would be speaking of objective truths. However, this does not mean that there are not subjective truths and metaphorical truths and various other metaphysical truths. I would agree with you for the most part that objective truths are the most common and most useful in everyday life, though I wouldn't go as far to say that the other truths are without utility.
-->
@3RU7AL
My quote:The idea is founded upon the concept that anything a person can conceive must be conceived within their mind and any idea within a person's mind is subjective to interpretation or perception. Therefore, nothing a person can conceptualize can be known as objective but rather their subjective interpretation. Ultimately, it denotes the idea that objective reality is rather an illusion as it rests upon the concept of a collective subjective reality. As we know, when many people believe in something it doesn't make it true but rather known.
I cannot hope to express this more advanced idea until you grasp the difference between known and truth along with objectivity and subjectivity as this is a more complex philosophy. However, I would like to revisit it once we have established the rudimentary concepts required to understand solipsism. Only then can we finally reach where I was hoping to start, which is further understanding solipsism along with its consequences of acceptance being both positive and negative. Therefore, reaching a more definitive grasp of objective and subjective reality and better understanding the world through an existence of being.
-->
@3RU7AL
i just did
No, you did not. You stated that my response is verification without proving that such response exists.
-->
@Critical-Tim
"To know means to believe with certainty, to be true means to correlate with."
i disagree
only facts are true
opinions cannot be true
also,
opinions cannot be false
opinions hold no truth value
it is a category error
to try and assign a truth value to an opinion
-->
@Best.Korea
i just didNo, you did not. You stated that my response is verification without proving that such response exists.
every time you respond
you are providing validation to my claim
-->
@Critical-Tim
once we have established the rudimentary concepts
phenomenal
i suspected as much
and that's why i am rigorously defining REAL-TRUE-FACT
this explains my axioms in exactly one minute and nineteen seconds,
We could meet in person.
-->
@3RU7AL
i disagreeonly facts are trueopinions cannot be true
If a person does not like a movie and then says they do they have not told the truth, as it is not true with their subjective experience. However, if a person does like a movie and they say that they like the movie, their words are true with their subjective experience.
This is a clear demonstration of how opinions and subjective experiences can both be true and false.
-->
@3RU7AL
that's why i am rigorously defining REAL-TRUE-FACT
I understand that you are attempting to define truth as objective reality, this is for the most part a useful way to define truth for general purposes. However, it is not objective reality that defines truth but rather whether the words correlate with objective reality that makes them true, just as words that correlate with subjective reality (someone's feelings) makes them true. Make no mistake, I am not prioritising emotions over objective reality, however I do recognize that truth is not inherently objective or subjective but rather dependent on whether it correlates with the reference. In your case you are referencing objective reality so if something is in alignment with objective reality it is objectively true. However, choose can also be subjective as explained the above comment which in that case would be defined as subjectively true.
In summary, there is no ultimate truth or one single truth reference, rather truth is not inherent within anything but rather a means of correlation between two systems.
-->
@Critical-Tim
This is a clear demonstration of how opinions and subjective experiences can both be true and false.
this is impossible to verify
and therefore
there is simply no way to call it
"true"
-->
@Critical-Tim
but rather dependent on whether it correlates with the reference
and whether or not something correlates with the reference
must be verifiable
either through observation
or by logical necessity
-->
@Critical-Tim
you seem to be
conflating
sincerity
with
"truth"
and this is a classic category error
-->
@3RU7AL
every time you respond
As I said, there is no proof that I responded even once. You are just assuming that I did.
-->
@3RU7AL
(Me) "but rather dependent on whether it correlates with the reference" (You) "and whether or not something correlates with the reference must be verifiable either through observation or by logical necessity"
What make you believe that referencing an empirical aspect must be a necessary requirement of truth.
With that logic, if something cannot be proven empirically true then it is not true. However, this is not the case. If something cannot be proven true empirically it doesn't make it true or false but rather an unknown as we cannot validify its correlation to a subjective reference. Therefore, if something cannot be validated through empirical means it doesn't necessarily deem it true or false but rather non-objectively verifiable.
I think they refer to this as a.
°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°• SUPER ● SILLY ● SOLIPSISM ● STALEMATE. °•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•
Got stuck on the good old , "Trying to prove" a single fucking thing to be true nonsense .
One day guys we will crack it.
One day someones gonna, "out of the blue " , prove something.
Im sure of it.
°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°• SUPER ● SILLY ● SOLIPSISM ● STALEMATE. °•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°•
Got stuck on the good old , "Trying to prove" a single fucking thing to be true nonsense .
One day guys we will crack it.
One day someones gonna, "out of the blue " , prove something.
Im sure of it.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
In the realm of philosophy, it is evident we already have all the knowledge necessary to find the answers, we only have to look. The study of philosophy is less about the physical or scientific aspect and more about the metaphysical aspect of the world. Being this is true and the metaphysical is within the mind, it is possible to understand the realm of philosophy through introspection. The idea of saying research or progress in the empirical, scientific, or physical world must be done to progress in philosophy is absurd; this is because philosophy is found within the metaphysical, which is within your mind.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I don't believe this is a stalemate. This is the process of identifying the communication breakdown, which is necessary in any debate to make a conclusive agreement. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the debate, perhaps you could be useful rather than using fancy alterations to mask the uselessness of your comment towards a productive means.
Does Nothing exist?
if not where did Something come from?
if Nothing does exist then how can it be called nothing?
if it exists it has to be something right?
This is the philosophy section right? can somebody philosophise some answers up to this shit so i can be on my merry way to being a person considered knowledgeable? at the minute I've got this in my head telling me its all just nothing pretending to be something until its satisfied enough that it falls back in to a state of nothing or sleep? what if we are its dream? what if we are nothing within nothing as nothing dreams that it is something? is this some 5 dimensional shit, is that what this all is? what does 10 Dimensions look like look like? will we ever get to see it? I mean we can barely cope with 3 dimensions but something has to be up there seeing it for what it is what are we missing?
Is the above an accurate depiction of 'Solipsism'
-->
@John00
Without thought there is neither nothing or something.
Even so, there maybe something that is not able to be considered.
Including ourselves perhaps.
Hmmmmmmm.
Probably best to run with what you think you know.
-->
@zedvictor4
This is getting a bit silly isn't it ?
It's on par with discussions into ( Free willy 2 )
Andddddd dealing with ' The ultra critically crucial and Clinically correct oh so coarse Criticizing Timmy. ' ain't easy.
Im just gonna go sit in vacuum for a hour or two Zed.
You'll have to solve this one by yourself.
( 2 , pass chips. ) remaining.
I'm gonna use one.
' PASS '
Fucking stupid fucking shit.
Fuckkkkkk.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Free Willy.
Is that like a gay sex orgy.
And if Deb sits in a vacuum,
It won't be a vacuum,
Because Deb will be sitting in there.
Hey Deb if everything was a vacuum.
What would be outside the vacuum?
Something or nothing.
Because as John00 rightly points out,
Nothing is something.
And everything is something.
( Free willy 2 ) was my slang for ( free will ) .
I likened it to the anoying discussion one gets into about ( free will )
But A empty cup.
In a vacuum.
Rubble rubble.
Zed you know im a pretty strong guy right ?
So like ummmm , No fucken , vacuum chamber thingy would effect me.
Im a full grown man
Actually.
Imagine playing " chicken " with ya mates in a vac.
No but Zed, I feel like ya wanna tell me that i can't " dig a hole "
Or a half a hole.
Then you will be like .
How long is a rope ?
Now picture this.
( a real real sexist joke about not being able to use the vacuum at the moment. )
Sluts