# Is This Sound Conjecture Or Mere Solipsism? (Psych 101) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 26, 2010, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433 "2010-10-26T19:20:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433/41 "2010-10-28T11:43:30Z")
> [@dzero](#): > > This appears to be a site for [Sufi mysticism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism). Like most mysticism the object is to go beyond the limitations imposed by language and logic. So often, attempts to explain the ideas behind the belief end up sounding nonsensical unless you are steeped in the language of that philosophy/religion. > > Anyone who has studied Zen has seen this just in the use of meditation koans - like ‘the sound of one hand clapping.’ On its face it’s a ridiculous question - or more accurately, a contradiction in terms. But that’s actually the whole point of it. > > I don’t doubt that these people believe what they’re saying in an absolute sense though, but I don’t think it serves any purpose to criticize it from outside of the framework under which it developed. I doubt that such criticisms would even be recognized as valid. While I can understand that some understanding of the jargon and background may be useful, is Sufi mysticism (or indeed, any mysticism) useful in any objective way? Do Sufi mystics live longer, heal faster, catch fewer diseases, and such? If such a question is not recognized as valid, are _any_ questions about objective effect so recognized? ---
**Author:** ![dzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@dzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dzero)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433/42 "2010-10-28T12:04:01Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > While I can understand that some understanding of the jargon and background may be useful, is Sufi mysticism (or indeed, any mysticism) useful in any objective way? Do Sufi mystics live longer, heal faster, catch fewer diseases, and such? If such a question is not recognized as valid, are _any_ questions about objective effect so recognized? I know virtually nothing about Sufism except that it parallels other forms of religious mysticism. As to its specific beliefs and principles, I have no idea. But to ask if mysticism has any useful purpose is sort of a non sequitur. Mysticism isn’t concerned with the physical body or material realm. The last thing they would be concerned with is being useful. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433/43 "2010-10-28T12:23:33Z")
> [@dzero](#): > > … Mysticism isn’t concerned with the physical body or material realm. The last thing they would be concerned with is being useful. I would say that mystics employ physicality to transcend it. Hence, the practices of meditation, prayer and forgiveness. I suppose that remembering who we are and the peace of mind which must accompany it are beyond “utility”. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433/44 "2010-10-28T12:36:57Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > The “spell” of words has many in thrall here. You mean our bizarre insistence that words have actual meanings and that when you string them together they should be comprehensible? Sorry about that. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433/45 "2010-10-28T12:39:07Z")
> [@dzero](#): > > But to ask if mysticism has any useful purpose is sort of a non sequitur. Mysticism isn’t concerned with the physical body or material realm. The last thing they would be concerned with is being useful. Well… how convenient for them. ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433/46 "2010-10-28T12:45:04Z")
I’m a little surprised that \*\*kanicbird \*\*hasn’t stopped by yet. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433/47 "2010-10-28T12:47:19Z")
> [@StusBlues](#): > > I’m a little surprised that \*\*kanicbird \*\*hasn’t stopped by yet. Maybe he has… in spirit. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433/48 "2010-10-28T15:41:03Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > Hypothetically, yes. Otherwise, try a different focus. I just want to make sure I’m understanding your argument. You’re saying that, hypothetically, prayer and/or psychotherapy can fix a broken leg? And you’re proposing that either of these two would be preferable to a medical route of setting bone and placing the leg in a cast? ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433/49 "2010-10-28T16:10:15Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > I just want to make sure I’m understanding your argument. > > You’re saying that, hypothetically, prayer and/or psychotherapy can fix a broken leg? And you’re proposing that either of these two would be preferable to a medical route of setting bone and placing the leg in a cast? What he asked. But if that’s not it, it seems to me that your argument is not that broken legs can be cured by psychotherapy, but that since broken legs cannot be cured by psychotherapy, a broken leg is not a problem - IOW, one should just ignore a broken leg. How any of that can be said to be “sound conjecture” instead of “mere solipsism” is beyond me, though. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433/50 "2010-10-28T16:33:02Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > I just want to make sure I’m understanding your argument. > > You’re saying that, hypothetically, prayer and/or psychotherapy can fix a broken leg? And you’re proposing that either of these two would be preferable to a medical route of setting bone and placing the leg in a cast? See, you’re thinking that “leg” means, like, an actual “leg”, man, when really he’s just talking about, like, sort of a “leg” that’s not really a “leg”, you know? And anyway, what does it _mean_ for a “leg” to be “broken”, anyway?! How can something that comes from nature be broken, huh? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433/51 "2010-10-28T17:15:04Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > I would say that mystics employ physicality to transcend it. Transcendence is a lie. We’re all in the soup. There are different ways of living in the soup, but there’s no getting out of the pot. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433/52 "2010-10-28T17:45:43Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > See, you’re thinking that “leg” means, like, an actual “leg”, man, when really he’s just talking about, like, sort of a “leg” that’s not really a “leg”, you know? And anyway, what does it _mean_ for a “leg” to be “broken”, anyway?! How can something that comes from nature be broken, huh? And what do you mean by “fix”? If the leg is broken, that is it’s natural state. It is supposed to be broken. How do you fix something that is already in a perfect state of one-ness with the universe? ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433/53 "2010-10-28T19:20:23Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > … You’re saying that, hypothetically, prayer and/or psychotherapy can fix a broken leg? And you’re proposing that either of these two would be preferable to a medical route of setting bone and placing the leg in a cast? I believe _any_ change in perception is possible. That’s all a “miracle” is. My perceptions of “myself” in relation to “everything else” perfectly reflect my belief system and, like all belief systems, mine is based on one of two possible assumptions as derived as follows. _Cogito ergo sum._ We all start here. Alright, I exist. What am I? I don’t remember creating myself yet, putatively, I am here. Here’s where _I_ started assuming. The finite mind is by definition self-referential and dies without moral compass. Bummer! But oh! dem autumn leaves. For easy reference, let’s call our source, and or not, “x”. “x” is responsible 😉 Atheists, "x"ers and other quibblers, how about “X” for all? What’s “X” in your particular perception? ETA Here’s mine, as if you give a shit.wtf, sue me for it, easy terms pleaseI will respond. Enough about me. Forever, I hope. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433/54 "2010-10-28T19:28:20Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > I believe _any_ change in perception is possible. Paging Samuel Johnson … Bishop Berkeley is on the white courtesy telephone. ANY change of perception is NOT possible. You can’t think yourself out of a bullet to the head. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433/55 "2010-10-28T19:31:57Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > … ANY change of perception is NOT possible. You can’t think yourself out of a bullet to the head. Seems to working for you. ETA and me, hypothetically ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433/56 "2010-10-28T20:42:01Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > I believe _any_ change in perception is possible. That’s all a “miracle” is. > > My perceptions of “myself” in relation to “everything else” perfectly reflect my belief system and, like all belief systems, mine is based on one of two possible assumptions as derived as follows. > > _Cogito ergo sum._ We all start here. > > Alright, I exist. What am I? I don’t remember creating myself yet, putatively, I am here. Here’s where _I_ started assuming. > > The finite mind is by definition self-referential and dies without moral compass. > > Bummer! But oh! dem autumn leaves. > > For easy reference, let’s call our source, and or not, “x”. “x” is responsible 😉 > > Atheists, "x"ers and other quibblers, how about “X” for all? > > What’s “X” in your particular perception? > > ETA Here’s mine, as if you give a shit.wtf, sue me for it, easy terms pleaseI will respond. Enough about me. Forever, I hope. You realize that this is all complete gibberish, right? I mean, surely you understand that putting these words together in this order conveys absolutely no intelligible ideas. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433/57 "2010-10-28T20:48:58Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > You realize that this is all complete gibberish, right? I mean, surely you understand that putting these words together in this order conveys absolutely no intelligible ideas. By Jove, I think you’ve got it! I’ve had better “debates” with [ELIZA](http://www.manifestation.com/neurotoys/eliza.php3) ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433/58 "2010-10-28T20:50:02Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > Seems to working for you. > > ETA and me, hypothetically We were discussing you, not me. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433/59 "2010-10-28T20:50:36Z")
In a recent thread, someone mentioned the impossibility of teaching natural language to artificial intelligence. I suspect this might be an example of that. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433/60 "2010-10-28T21:00:24Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > We were discussing you, not me. And … [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sound-conjecture-or-mere-solipsism-psych-101/558433.md?page=4)