If reality cannot be perceived then how can I know that reality is there?
Reality is there; therefore, 2 + 3 = 5?
Is 2 + 3 = 5 one of the patterns that you notice? If everyone believes it, does that make it true?
Did you even read my answer?
SOMETHING is there, even if it’s only my own mind playing tricks. And that something behaves in consistent ways. Because of that, I’m able to accurately predict how that something will behave in the future. It doesn’t really matter if my internal model matches reality. All that matters is that it makes correct predictions.
No. “2+3=5” is a mathematical abstraction that can be used as an element of certain models of reality. It’s not a pattern by itself.
For example, in my default model of reality I tend to picture the world as being filled with things. However I know “thing-ness” is really just a cognitive convenience. The molecules making up a table don’t know they’re part of a table. “Table” is a conceptual category I create in order to lump a collection of sensory traces into a manageable chunk. Something is triggering those sensory traces, but its not actually a THING that’s a TABLE. That’s just a useful model.
“2+3=5” is a useful way to describe how THINGS behave in my model. However, I have no proof that that math is an essential part of reality.
SOMEONE is there, even if it’s only my own mind playing tricks. And that someone behaves in consistent ways. Because of that, I’m able to accurately predict how that someone will behave in the future. It doesn’t matter if my internal model matches reality. All that matters is that it makes correct predictions.
However, I have no proof that that I am an essential part of reality. Or do I? Or do you?
You get a gold star if you give a good reply to this post.
As far as I can tell, there is no good reply that you couldn’t come back with “and how do you that is real?” I’ve ask before, and I’ll ask again: What would valid proof, or even evidence, consist of in your opinion?
You can’t win. Either reality exists in which case you are wrong, or it doesn’t exist in which case there is no Kozmik in the first place to win the argument.
I am not a solipsist; in fact, I am an anti-solipsist.
Anti-solipsism, modeled after solipsism, is the philosophical idea that everything, except one’s own mind, is sure to exist. The external world and other minds can be known. How can the external world and other minds be known, and, as Czarcasm asks, how do you [know] that is real?
Nothing in my current model of reality suggests that I’m an essential part of it. I have no way of proving that, of course. But that doesn’t bother me. I have no way of proving ANY a posteriori claim. All I can do is construct a computationally efficient model of reality and periodically revise it when its predictions disagree with my sensory inputs.
If your mind doesn’t exist, how are you thinking?
Sometimes we think something exists, but it turns out not to. I thought there was a pickle in my refrigerator, but my son ate the last one yesterday. Considering that sometimes we are mistaken about the existence of some objects, how can you claim that you can never be mistaken about the existence of anything?
Why not?
I’m able to accurately predict how someone will behave in the future.
And sometimes we think someone exists, but they turn out not to.
Solipsism makes the claim that the external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. I can claim that I can never be mistaken about the existence of anything because, as an anti-solipsist, I make the claim that the external world and other minds can be known, and do exist. The question is: How would an anti-solipsist know that the external world and other minds exist?
I didn’t ask any such thing. I was saying that there was no use trying to answer your question because that was how you would respond…and I was correct.
All I know is that none of you are nearly as real as me.
Because my model of reality includes the notion that the current structure of the universe is dependent upon billions of years of history prior to my arrival on the scene. Hence I am not an essential part of the universe.
That doesn’t answer my question. You say you don’t believe your own mind exists. If so, what’s doing the thinking?
Your retreat into cryptic answers suggests that you realize your position is incoherent. You said “Everything, except one’s own mind, is sure to exist.” I pointed out that the pickles in my fridge weren’t “sure to exist”. If I can be mistaken about a simple feature of reality like the existence of pickles in my fridge, then perhaps I can be mistaken about more complicated features as well.
Is short, your “anti-solipsism” is demonstrably FALSE.
Pray tell, enlighten us.
So then are you a solipsist?
Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind, alone, is “sure to exist”.
I can’t *prove *the existence of anything other than my own mind. However, I provisionally accept the existence of an external reality as the most plausible explanation for my sensory experiences.
You say you don’t think your mind exists. What are you thinking with?
You say you can be certain of the existence of the external world. How do you justify that certainty?
Is that how you justify that certainty?
You wrote, “I’m able to accurately predict how that something will behave in the future”; I wrote, “I’m able to accurately predict how someone will behave in the future.” How can you claim that something, let alone someone, in any sense of the word, can “behave”? Are you able to accurately predict how other minds will behave in the future? Are you able to accurately predict how the external world will behave in the future?
I provisionally accept the existence of the external world as the most plausible explanation for other minds.
What is the most plausible explanation in your mind?
My model makes accurate predictions. I think there’s a chair there, and when I go to sit down, my sensations confirm that there is.
I’m using “behave” in a very general sense. For example, other humans don’t pop randomly in and out of existence. They don’t walk through walls or suddenly grow to be 200’ tall. They behave as though their physical beings are constrained by natural law.
To a limited extent. Minds are chaotic systems, which are difficult to simulate. However, within generous bounds, yes, I can predict how other minds will behave. For example, about an hour from now when my wife wakes up she’ll almost certainly ask me if I made coffee for her yet.
Absolutely. I couldn’t drive a car if I couldn’t.
Ah, so you’re not an anti-solipsist at all! You can’t PROVE that other minds exist. It’s just a plausible explanation.
What if you didn’t have to drive a car? What if cars are able to accurately predict how the external world and other minds will behave in the future?
I can prove that the external world and other minds exist. The solipsist says “the external world and other minds cannot be known”. As an anti-solipsist, I say the contrary and declare that the external world and other minds can be known. The solipsist says that only one’s own mind, alone, is “sure to exist”. The anti-solipsist says that everything, except one’s own mind, is sure to exist.
I can’t PROVE that my own mind does not exist. You can’t PROVE that the external world and other minds exist. You can’t PROVE that your own mind exists, either!
Goodness, it’s just an example. If I couldn’t accurately predict the future behavior of the universe, I couldn’t even walk down the hall.
So you claim. I say you’re wrong. Why don’t you show us your proof?
So, which is it?
CAN you prove that the external world and other minds exist, or CAN’T you?
Cogito ergo sum.
Proof:
- Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is “sure to exist”. Cogito ergo sum.
- Solipsism claims that the external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside of one’s own mind.
- Either the claims of solipsism are true or the claims of solipsism are false.
- The claims of solipsism are false.
- Therefore, the external world and other minds can be known. See: 2.
- The external world and other minds are “everything”. See: 1.
- Therefore, everything, except one’s own mind, is “sure to exist”.
- Thus, anti-solipsism is the philosophical idea that everything, except one’s own mind, is “sure to exist”.
Did you even read my answer? You can’t PROVE that the external world and other minds exist.
See my proof: 1.
Having had an experience that I thought was near death was the Chemicals acting on my brain and the possible hearing the talk of the doctors and nurses in attendance. There is much to the human mind that cannot be explained but is not necessarily from another being ,or dimension.