That’s your proof???
That’s part of my proof.
The Hamster King’s proof that his own mind exists is Cogito ergo sum.
The claims of solipsism are true.
Baldly asserting something isn’t proof.
Do you even realize that you’re contradicting yourself? First you say that you can prove the external world exists. Then you say that you can’t prove the external world exists. Which is it?
Yes. Notice that “cogito ergo sum” is an ARGUMENT, not a bald assertion. If you have a REFUTATION of Descartes’ argument for the existence of the mind, please share it.
First, I say that the external world and other minds cannot be known and that only one’s own mind, alone, is “sure to exist”. That is solipsism. Then I say that the external world and other minds can be known and that only the external world and other minds, together, are “sure to exist”. That is anti-solipsism.
Where’s the contradiction?
ARGUMENT
REFUTATION
Do you have proof that the external world and other minds are essential parts of reality?
I thought the topic of this debate was the nature of God, not Reality?
That quote from Descartes is not about the existence of mind, but about the existence of other types of a priori knowledge (specifically, math). So by refuting it you’re not refuting cogito ergo sum.
And your “refutation” seems to consist of baldly asserting that the external world is “sure to exist”. That’s not a refutation.
WHY is the external world “sure to exist”? How do you JUSTIFY making that assertion?
No. I’ve never claimed they were.
I’d be happy if **Kozmik **wants to take this to another thread. Then maybe he could explain what the hell his point is.
Kozmik’s idea of argumentation is little better than what the grapist employed in the past.
My argument, restated:
First, I say that the external world and other minds cannot be known and that the cogito, alone, is “sure to exist”. Cogito ergo sum. That is solipsism. Then I say that the external world and other minds can be known and that only the external world and other minds, together, are “sure to exist” That is anti-solipsism.
Other minds are “sure to exist”.
I like Czarcasm’s argumentation much more.
That’s not an argument. Those are just definitions. An argument is explaining WHY a position is justified, not just stating what it is.
Solipsism cannot be justified. Solipsism claims that only one’s own mind, alone, is “sure to exist” and that the external world and other minds cannot be known. The claims of solipsism cannot be justified. I refute the claim that the external world and other minds cannot be known. I declare that the external world and other minds can be known. I refute the claim that one’s own mind, alone, is “sure to exist”. I declare that only the external world and other minds, together, are "sure to exist’. Anti-solipsism claims that the external world and other minds can be known and that only the external world and other minds, together, are “sure to exist”. Anti-solipsism can be justified. The main claim of solipsism is that everything, except the external world and other minds, is “sure to exist”. The main claim of anti-solipsism is that everything, except one’s own mind, is “sure to exist”. The main claim of solipsism cannot be jusified. The main claim of anti-solipsism can be justified. Anti-solipsism is justified.
Merely repeating that it’s justified over and over doesn’t mean that it is. You have have to show your work. Step by step, like this:
- I think.
- If I can think, something must be doing the thinking.
- Therefore my mind MUST exist.
- My mind experiences a sequence of sensory inputs.
- These sensory inputs APPEAR to be generated by an external reality.
- As of yet, I have not been able to PROVE they are generated by an external reality.
- Therefore external reality might not exist.
Personally, I live my life as though external reality does exist. However I accept that this assumption is not a proven fact.
If you have a PROOF that reality exists (not merely an assertion), then I invite you, yet again, to share it.
I believe that the external world and other minds can be known. I understand that the solpsist believes that the external world and other minds cannot be known.
Personally, I live my life as though other minds live their life as though the external world does exist and can be known.
See? Is this any better than “This post has been graped by the grapist”? 
Belief doesn’t enter into it. Can you PROVE the external world exists?
You are not a solipsist. I am not a solpsist. I am an anti-solipsist. I’d happily switch, too. However, I will not switch from anti-solipsism to solipsism. The solipsist says that the external world and other minds cannot be known. I SAY that the external world and other minds can be known. Solipsism is the philosphical idea that one’s own mind, alone, is “sure to exist”. Anti-solipsism is the philosophical idea that EVERYTHING - the external world and other minds - EVERYTHING, except one’s own mind, is “sure to exist”.
Is that a “yes” or a “no”?
That is a “no” to solipsism.
Is that a “no” to the question actually asked, though?
You mean this question:
No; however, I can prove that other minds exist.