Let’s say for the sake of discussion, I ascribe to the concept of solipsism (explained here). My question is this:
Can you convince me that you exist? Don’t gimme any ‘I can punch ya in the throat, THEN we’ll see who exists’ kinda stuff. I’m relatively serious, and I think the question deserves at leat a LITTLE consideration.
[disclaimer]
By the way…yes, I realize that even ASKING this question (by referring to you) seems contradictory to my stance, but I’m at a loss for a better way to open the discussion. For the sake of consistency, all of my further references to you can be taken to mean another aspect/state of my consciousness.
[/disclaimer]
Waaaaaay back when, philosopher David Hume put forth the notion that nobody can really know anything, and I’m not aware of anyone who managed to get around this. Even the “I think, therefore I am” argument, as my Philosophy 100 teacher demonstrated, doesn’t hold water.
[Bill Hicks]
:News Anchor:
“Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is just a dream, and we are the imaginations of ourselves.
Here’s Tom, with the weather…”
[/Bill Hicks]
you posted ‘Waaaaaay back when, philosopher David Hume put forth the notion that nobody can really know anything, and I’m not aware of anyone who managed to get around this.’
If nobody can know anything, why should we believe Hume?
Further ‘Even the “I think, therefore I am” argument, as my Philosophy 100 teacher demonstrated, doesn’t hold water.’
If you don’t know your Philosophy teacher exists, how can he demonstrate anything?
I might be able to convince you someone exists, not necessarily me, though. I could be just a grad students Turing project.
So, it’s probably not a rigorous answer by any means, but:
Given that your mind began as a child, tabula rasa, how did you learn? How did the concepts you learn in mathematics/physics etc… occur? How are they all consistant?
It’s possible that a sufficiently advanced mind could construct a completely coherent and rational world in all of the detail we see around us. Would such an advanced mind know itself?
Of course, it’s also possible to ignore inconsistancies in the face of evidence. (see ‘Creationism’ )
Still, when your mind was a child, how could it have created the “universe” or sensory illusion?
Well, I’m still going to ASSUME that I exist. If what I perceive to be reality turns out to be false, I guess that’s just too freaking bad for me. I was just noting that finding absolute proof of reality wasn’t going to be a walk in the park.
Do you dislike the quote feature, or did you just not see the button that you can press?
In the past month, I have spent probably close to three hours a day roaming these boards and reading various topics, sometimes up to four or five. I have had started probably 15-20 threads which others on this board have responded to. I have also partaken in 128 threads with 165 posts, many of which have been quoted by others as they responded to me.
This proves beyond a resonable doubt that, while I don’t have a life, I most certainly exist.
Actually, your death would seem to be a legitimate proof to us that your solipsism is untrue. Not that I’m suggesting we experiment or anything…
If someone wants to make up some half-ass definition of what reality is from their point of view, so be it. But unless you can somehow support your position with observable evidence that reality is not as it appears, there’s no reason to expect any rational person would believe you.
Perhaps instead, you’d like to try to convince us that we don’t exist.
Yes, but waaaaaaaaay before Hume, Socrates once met a wise man who said that he didn’t know anything. Well, Socrates, reasoned, if he didn’t know anything, he knew some thing: that he knew nothing, and therefore was more inteligent than the rest of the schmiels.
Actually, in a philosophical position, such as solipsism, you cannot prove anything that violates the foundation of the philosophy, for philosophy is a view point from which a whole body of beliefs follow. Therefore, if it is the basic philosophy that nothing exists outside of my mind, you cannot disprove it. It’s like an axiom in math, altho axioms are universally granted to have solid foundation in reality.
Hmmm…lots to think about. Thanks for the responses.
After a little thought, it seems that my original assertion isn’t disprovable. It isn’t defendable either, so I guess I’m gonna have to shrug really hard, and offer the following cop-out:
It doesn’t MATTER if you guys exist or not, I still have to act as such, for practicality’s sake.
By the way…I really don’t have a God complex or anything. I just wanted to offer an intriguing idea to discuss, but it turns out that it ain’t no fun if we can’t come to a satisfactory conclusion. While it’s fun to argue about things like this with the halfwits I meet on a daily basis, It’s a little humbling to debate with people who actually have a little intelligence!
Humbly yours (and afraid to start another new thread for a while),
It would seem to be consistent with the normal procedural traditions of debate that you, having posed the question are subsuming the existence of both yourself, and at least one hypothetical respondent. The concept of proof itself requires no fewer than two unique individuals, and has a strong need for even a third. Having already done the greater portion of the work on destroying your own position, I feel you need only the remaining demonstrated evidence, that of posing the question, which contains an implicit assumption of more than one other being as well.
We are at three, and rising rapidly.
Proof is not necessary, since argument itself is presumptive of existence of not less than two participants.
But anyway, the reason I copped out on my original argument was that it’s too easy to defend, and not properly debatable. I could always reply to you that, since I’m (before the cop-out), the only one in existence, that’s just what I’d EXPECT another facet of my consciousness to say! And I could say that to ANY reply. But that’s idiotic (and no fun).
If I’m alone in a room and come up with a neat idea (call it ‘X’), I might ‘argue’ with myself: ME: Cool!! X! ME: Nah, that wouldn’t work. ME: Sure it would! ME: Then again, maybe not… ME: But it MIGHT work. ME: No it won’t, for obvious reasons
The self-debate on idea X can be resolved with only 1 participant (unless you count id, ego and superego).
The OP can be argued ad infinitum, with everyone pissed of, and nobody in agreement (and no minds changed). I admit to the cop-out, and apologize for not realizing right away that the argument is futile (either way you look at it) from a practical standpoint.
Aw, lay off the newbie, he feels bad enough already
It doesn’t matter if anything exists if you have to deal with them anyway. It’s like free will - even if you believe you have no choice, you still end up choosing something.
)