With the exception of taking it on “faith” that solipsism is not an accurate description of the universe, I don’t understand how that is the case. I don’t have an argument to back this intuition, but it seems as if there is a necessary dichotomy: either solipsism is true or our senses are accurate but not both. If multiple beings exist, if they compete for resources, and if they reproduce sexually, then it would seem to follow that the more accurately the world is represented, the better the survival chances. Then it is just a matter of time to get accurate representations.
What constraints can be loosened? I suppose we could have a case where we all share a fantasy world, fed by some unknown entity. That basically is The Matrix scenario: group solipsism.
It really seems that once we break from the solipsist view, that is, once we begin to interact with the real world even a little bit, competitive forces will hone the accuracy of our senses. As a result, you either have to jump into solipsism with both feet (if they exist) or accept the reality we see around us.
Forgive me if this was already brought up, i didnt read through the many replies here. But let me offer something worth thinking about. Every person, animal, plant, ect. is made up of molecules and atoms, we cant argue that… I never really thought much about it before until the idea was proposed to me, but our bodies are constantly replacing these atoms and molecules in our body and excreting the old ones. Example: dead skin cells fall off, hair, these things are being replaced by nutrition in your food and by processes in the body. Your body is constantly repairng itself by disposing dead cells and growing new ones fueled by nutrition, respiration, etc. Now to the point, it is estimated that your body has completely replaced all molecules and atoms in the span of 7 years. So in essence, your body, brain and every physical aspect of self that was present 7 years ago no longer exists accept in randomized particles. Does this mean that you dont exist? -I have to answer no. Does this mean that you are a completely different person?- physically yes, but something has obviously stayed very much the same. - You have the same fingerprint, the same memories, many of the same likes/ dislikes/ qualities etc. This implies to me that the essence of life IS design. The design present in your brain is retained, hence memory. The design in your DNA is preserved to a high degree and we are even able to pass that on to children. In order to be completely non-existent i would think that your unique design would have to be completely randomized. - And even if everything about you is COMPLETELY randomized we have the the good old “spooky” Bells theorem to consider- which basically states that any atoms once in contact continue to have an effect on each other instantaneously through time and space - suggesting a connection- connection suggesting a design to some degree. With all this info I am led to believe that science leaves room for some kind of immortality- for lack of a better word. Maybe a bit off topic but i think life as a design is worth keeping in mind in this debate…
I think the word “faith” is now used in so many different ways by different people that (at least in discussions of philosophy or theology) it’s now almost meaningless.
One could “believe” that others exist who also are in their own perceptual/mental world, therefore it’s not solipsistic.
If our senses are “accurate” by which I think you mean, reflect a “real” material world, we never encounter it. So either way we are solipsistically alone.
I think one can, or maybe has to, live in this reality(?) as if it’s true, (to some extent) even if they know it is not. Even if this were a dream you still have to eat etc.
If that is the case, and I am not saying it isn’t, how come a tattoo lasts a life time?
We don’t know how we get from one moment to the next seemingly intact, it’s quite baffling. And maybe it doesn’t happen although it certainly appears to. Am I the same person I was a minute ago? It’s almost an insane question since that minute old person doesn’t exist anymore, except in memory and only vaguely so.
If there is a design how could we perceive it if we are it? You can’t objectify yourself? Well you can, but not the “real” observer self.
What doesn’t appear to change in your exposition is consciousness as it hasn’t shed anything has it?
There are many views between strict solipsism and strict actualism. Our senses are themselves a part of the “reality we see around us”. Using them to validate what we perceive as valid is no different from the Biblical literalist who says that the Bible is true because the Bible says so.
Iamthat, so do you agree with my intuition then? I’m not sure I understand. Either solipsism is wholly accurate or our senses are wholly accurate, but there really is no middle ground where we sense the real world, but our sensations are not accurate. Are you saying, “Yes that’s true, only we don’t know which of the two possibilities obtain”?
Yes, I think most of us do not know what the truth is, whether the material world exists or not. But if a real material world exists I don’t think it is possible for us to perceive it. And I personally believe that it does not exist. Either way we live a solipsistic existence. We are all alone but don’t know it.
My view is that this existence consists of an “observing self” and a mental world that it observes, which includes all that comes into awareness, internal/external. I as this “observing self” cannot perceive your world nor you mine.
We cannot perceive or interact with each other as an “observing self” (consciousness)
My understanding is that a solipsist would conclude that others do not exist since they never encounter them. However if I believe that others exist based on similar appearances and behaviours, then I am not strictly solipsistic.
And another way out of a claustrophobic solipsism is that this “observing self” cannot observe itself; Most of us take what we perceive for who we are, we take the seen as the seer, but the “seer” is never seen. This “hidden observer” is said to be a direct connection or aspect of a god or transcendent self.
Okay, I think from that I can infer that you do not agree with my intuition. I sort of figure that if there really are electromagnetic waves “out there” then we can perceive them, within a certain range of wave lenghts, as light. And though we don’t perceive them as wave lengths proper, we perceive them as colors of light. Then the mapping between wave lengths of electromagnetic waves and our color perception is an “accurate” and (generally) consistent one.
To rephrase it, if there are electromagnetic waves out there, and if some organisms can perceive them, then it follows (in my intuition) that competitive pressures will ensure that the representations are accurately mapped. From there I would assert that if the mapping between what is “out there” and what we perceive is accurate, then we can learn something about the world around us.
That’s where my intuition perceives a necessary dichotomy: either solipsism or our senses are accurate, but nothing in between. Hence, my intuition that “believing” our perceptions is not an act of “faith”, with the caveat that it may be a solipsistic universe and I can’t really prove it isn’t.
Our eyes are basically light or photon detectors, the light enters our eyes, a signal goes to the brain which transforms it into colour, and a visual world appears, and if the representations are accurately mapped we have an accurate image of the world.
But since the signal went from your eyes to your brain what you “see” is a mental image or thought. It is “inside” your brain, yet it appears to be “out there” even though it is IN your mind.
So how does a thought get or reside “out there” ?
I think we assume there is an “out there” because we assume there is an “in here”. We create duality where there is none.
I think you have created two worlds, a material one that you never encounter and mental one that you only ever encounter.
js_africanus wrote:
quote:
Are you sure that’s what Bell’s theorem proves?
It sounds pretty amazing and seems impossible, but Bells Theorem is well proven and it really makes you think about some possibilies in the universe. Einstein filled in alot of gaps in physics but he definetly couldnt fill it all. Bells theorem is really pretty cool- look it up…
