Do you agree with solipsism?

[gooblet]

Solipsism is quite an interesting take. As my dpdr has gotten worse, i've started to lose touch with reality and am having doubts with whether things are real. After all the only thing you can actually prove is real is yourself. There is no way of proving that your senses tell the truth.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I can't say I tend to experience life like this. It feels horribly real most of the time. So- is it like you feel like everything and everyone is a simulation and, only you are real? That things only exist when your senses perceive them? The whole scenario of the tree falling in the forest with no one to hear it so- did it make a sound? Type of quandary?

For me, I believe the world exists- whether I witness it or not. It existed billions of years before my birth and will likely exist at least a few million after my death.

Where I would agree is my individual perception of the world is in some ways, likely unique. Not just because of my senses- which likely share similarities to everyone else's but- because of my lived experience. My preferences. My experience of a song, a sunset, a biscuit is likely fairly unique to me. To what memories it conjures up. To how I'm feeling at the time. I don't think reality needs me to exist though.

 

[DarkRange55]

I agree with solipsism to the extent that the existence of oneself is the only thing that one can know for sure (even the nature of that existence cannot be known for sure).
However, I disagree with those that say oneself is the only thing that exists – the existence of other things are highly probable, but simply cannot be proven.

I'm not a fan of the theory that we are probably Boltzmann brains because over the course of near-infinite time Boltzmann brains would statistically dominate consciousness.
In the first place, this assumes that the ability for Boltzmann brains to pop into existence remains for near-infinite time. And in the second place, the statistical argument fails because by that same argument, Boltzmann brains that didn't bother with a consistent perceived "reality" would vastly outnumber those that had a consistent perceived reality. Since my perceived reality is consistent (what I think of as the past obeys coherent laws), the Boltzmann brain dominated universe fails the statistical test that it depends on for its claim of dominance.

 

[Gustav Hartmann]

My working hypothesis is: the world is like it seems. Atherwise I cold not live and act. But back in my bain I know that I can only be sure that my mind exists.

 

[daruino]

I mean- it is difficult to refute solipsism since it doesn't even have any arguments in support of it- solipsism is more a skeptical stance on realism. I can't not "agree" with this skepticism- because it can't be disproven (nor proven)- but practically speaking- no one can actually live as a solipsist. If you are the only mind to exist- I can imagine someone who does not have any social interactions anymore- doesn't go outside- works etc. My philosophy teacher used to joke that if someone actually thinks like that they'd have to visit a psych ward.

 

[Asya]

Yes. It's something I've believed for years before discovering it had a term. It's the only thing that makes sense. I suffer from extreme derealization and disassociation. I'll say though, that it doesn't make life inherently meaningless or anything like that. Just because other people may or may not be real does not make them any less real to you, since you exist.

 

[Pluto]

 

[Pessimist]

No, I don't. It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[ben_]

Maybe. I guess I stopped caring about whether something is real or not. I'm not even able to define "reality". Everything appears as images and sounds and emotions in my consciousness. Everything is equally vivid. A dream is as real as being awake, it just doesn't translate into the present the same way. But if asked, I'll lie and say "it was a dream, it was not real". Just to look sane. :)

 

[hurts2b-old]

I think it's a destructive thing that leads to a lot of shitty behavior. If you distrust your senses to the extent of believing you are the only alive thing, that nothing and no one else are real, you can morally justify pretty much anything.

Like yeah, maybe nothing is real and this is the matrix. Or maybe the whole world is made of pudding. I just don't see that kind of unfalsifiable speculation as having an upside or being worth my time.

 

[jw_sisyphus97]

Ultimately, solipsism is a logical step. Once you step inside and close the door, there is no logical lever to pry it back open. We can't disprove it, just choose to ignore it.

I don't think "shitty behavior" is a logical byproduct of solipsism. Whether i'm in a matrix or a world made of pudding, I'm still the one making the choices, and that weight is inescapable, regardless of how much intellectual clarity I seek. Avoiding the question because it brings no comfort doesn't make the dilemma any less fundamental.

 

[webb&flow]

Ultimately, solipsism is a logical step. Once you step inside and close the door, there is no logical lever to pry it back open. We can't disprove it, just choose to ignore it.

How is accepting an unfalsifiable claim a logical step?

What cannot be disproven cannot be faithfully proven.

 

[iguazo falls]

Solipsism is quite an interesting take. As my dpdr has gotten worse, i've started to lose touch with reality and am having doubts with whether things are real. After all the only thing you can actually prove is real is yourself. There is no way of proving that your senses tell the truth.

if you split your brain in half, which side would you reside?

 

[N@te]

Solipsism is quite an interesting take. As my dpdr has gotten worse, i've started to lose touch with reality and am having doubts with whether things are real. After all the only thing you can actually prove is real is yourself. There is no way of proving that your senses tell the truth.

I mean it seems pretty absurd to deny it. Unless we are to interpret "agree with Solipsism" as meaning that we believe it is significantly likely that only our mind exists.

How is accepting an unfalsifiable claim a logical step?

What cannot be disproven cannot be faithfully proven.

"What cannot be disproven cannot be faithfully proven"
This is not true. The fact it cannot be disproven does not discount the theory; if anything it should make it seem more appealing.

 

[PimpHand]

The word "reality" comes from the Latin res. Now, you might thing the word res would be used to refer to the material things, such as a tree, gold or iron. That's false. As with everything we believe to know about the ancient times, this word got appropriated by materialist intellectuals to refer to the material, physical world.

But in Rome, res could refer to anything that had a value and a somewhat independent definition. Res could be tree, iron, gold, but could be a moral value, a law or, even, the res publica, ie the things that belonged to everyone (or at least every free citizen, slavery was a thing unfortunately).

As such, the dichotomy of a "reality" versus a non "reality" or a abstract "reality" is false. There's no absolute reality, because everything we consider a "reality" is interconnected. You can kill someone based on a moral value. You can do a good thing based on a dream you had. You can heal your depression or your mental condition by making abstract, surreal art.

Everything that can be valued is real. It doesn't need to be made of atoms. It doesn't need to be "proved" real. If it exists, it exists. If it doesn't exist, you can't even think of it.

One example: I hate when math teachers say "division by zero doesn't exist", it exists. It can be anything actually. We say that division by zero is not defined, because for the sake of consistency of our theory, division by zero would have to be a number so great, no other number could be greater. But every single natural number has a successor, N + 1. We can think of it. Thus, division by zero is undefined.

 

[DreamingDryad]

it's a fun idea to think about because of the implications if it were true and the stuff it can bring up. like if im the only real person, ethics becomes a completely different beast, but also does that change how I feel about them? Like, maybe murder would be "ok" but would I agree with that, and if I don't would that not make it ethical if I, the only being that exists, say so? or perhaps murder could be considered a form of self-harm, the "person" murdered being a facet of myself?

do i actually believe it? no clue, and I have no way of knowing, so for the sake of practicality, no. But lately thing have been so shit and specifically cruel ive started to wonder if my life is some sort of karmic punishment, and solipsism has come up in those thoughts. certainly would explain a lot

 

[Graveyardly]

Yo look into what a Boltzmann brain is, that would be solipsism and reality would be like auto generated imagination to not be bored by the brain ! Diagnosed schizos or people with delusions please don't look into this, it fucked me up

 

[webb&flow]

solipsism is dumb. Why would you be conscious and not anyone else. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

If you believe consciousness is caused by brain signals, then you have to admit the overwhelming possibility that EVERYONE ELSE with similar brains as you do is ALSO conscious. You basically have to believe in some form of substance dualism to think that solipsism is a physical possibility at all. Solipsism is basically the belief that everyone else (other than you, for some reason) is a p-zombie. What evidence do you have that your brain structure somehow magically grants you sentience in a way NO ONE else has??? It's completely ridiculous.

It's notable that this subject is being touched upon on a suicide forum. You could argue that suicide may be interpreted as a solipsistic behavior, in various ways. However, this idea that other people do not have thoughts and feelings is an insane idea, with no evidence to support, and titanic amounts of evidence to suggest the contrary.

Other people ARE capable of having conscious experience, deep ones, and deep feelings too—to have to proclaim this feels terribly odd indeed.

You can believe that you exist, WITHOUT being a solipsist. One can easily believe that they exist, and that others exist too.

We ARE similar to other people in VERY MANY REAL WAYS.

To any solipsists here: Give me the evidence why you think I don't exist.

In the meantime, I will continue on existing, regardless of your opinion. Pound sand! I exist! I'm gonna do something else now! Have a nice day, genuinely XD.

 

[Graveyardly]

solipsism is dumb. Why would you be conscious and not anyone else. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

If you believe consciousness is caused by brain signals, then you have to admit the overwhelming possibility that EVERYONE ELSE with similar brains as you do is ALSO conscious. You basically have to believe in some form of substance dualism to think that solipsism is a physical possibility at all. Solipsism is basically the belief that everyone else (other than you, for some reason) is a p-zombie. What evidence do you have that your brain structure somehow magically grants you sentience in a way NO ONE else has??? It's completely ridiculous.

It's notable that this subject is being touched upon on a suicide forum. You could argue that suicide may be interpreted as a solipsistic behavior, in various ways. However, this idea that other people do not have thoughts and feelings is an insane idea, with no evidence to support, and titanic amounts of evidence to suggest the contrary.

Other people ARE capable of having conscious experience, deep ones, and deep feelings too—to have to proclaim this feels terribly odd indeed.

You can believe that you exist, WITHOUT being a solipsist. One can easily believe that they exist, and that others exist too.

We ARE similar to other people in VERY MANY REAL WAYS.

To any solipsists here: Give me the evidence why you think I don't exist.

In the meantime, I will continue on existing, regardless of your opinion. Pound sand! I exist! I'm gonna do something else now! Have a nice day, genuinely XD.

I think it's more important to highlight that a solipsistic view of life is brought about by isolation and lack of the deep interpersonal relationships that would bring one to the conclusions that you did.

Your system supposes perfect exchange and communication between entities so that they could confirm they have the same "bandwidth" or depth of soul. But if one never has relations to that extent, then one has no reason to believe they exist.

I'm not throwing out your whole arguments because you have some valid points but the assumptions need to be realistic.

Edit: and I'm sorry to say this but solipsism in a vacuum is a perfect philosophy and an answer to everything. The most convincing thing that would make it not real is the fact that it is such a good answer and answers "absolutely everything"

 

[webb&flow]

Your system supposes perfect exchange and communication between entities so that they could confirm they have the same "bandwidth" or depth of soul. But if one never has relations to that extent, then one has no reason to believe they exist.

Hmm, well, I wouldn't say it supposes perfect exchange and communications, but enough exchange and witnessing of the expression of other consciousnesses to have the supposition that others are conscious as well to be one that is not only possible but truly overwhelming, oftentimes in a glorious manner—and when it comes to tender empathy, often in a touching at times wistful manner too.

But if one never has relations to that extent, then one has no reason to believe they exist.

Our immediate experiences and past experiences form databases of information within our brains, that our brain pulls from and processes; and this available range affects the emotions and ideas that can form within this "personal frame" we have. If candid communicational experiences are sufficiently few and far between, an idea like solipsism can become more appealing due to its refuting evidence being further from sight.

I would argue that the existence of art in general is enough proof of consciousness outside ourselves though, but that would be another tract, haha :).

I sincerely offer respect for investigating the root causes of these ways of thought; it's something I've done in some other posts of mine, but it's something I neglected to touch upon here, haha; so, thank you for covering that crucial aspect :).

The most convincing thing that would make it not real is the fact that it is such a good answer and answers "absolutely everything"

Absolutely! Principle of explosion :). If one has one equation that can solve literally everything, that can derive literally any conclusion, without any hitch, it's likely an insane one.

Ultimately, I agree with the whole body of your post. It draws important attention to this key fact: ideological viewpoints often derive from emotional experiences as well, which are usually life experiences. A person's experience with other people totally influences how they think about those other people, and to extents even people in general too.

Edit: and I'm sorry to say this but solipsism in a vacuum is a perfect philosophy and an answer to everything. The most convincing thing that would make it not real is the fact that it is such a good answer and answers "absolutely everything"

I would like to conclude that fantastic second sentence, an absolutely stellar footnote to the philosophical aspects of this affair, with this quote from Infinite Jest~ :)

If, by the virtue of charity or the circumstance of desperation, you ever chance to spend a little time around a Substance-recovery halfway facility like Enfield MA's state-funded Ennet House, you will acquire many exotic new facts. […]

That logical validity is not a guarantee of truth.

For a key point in the premises as well—the bases which we are operating from.

And the frame of reference that operation begins within is a key factor to be considered as well, for that provides the environment, drives, and affects affecting the inquiry as well. Our own personal frame of reference (influenced by personal experiences, especially those with other people) truly does have a real effect on our thinking methods and thinking preferences—and it is more lucid to nod to the origins of ideas such as this when discussing them, as to give a more lucid etiology of the matter at hand. And I sincerely thank you for bringing this critical function of the matter to hand. May we all make our own personal contributions in any ways we do towards a more lucid etiology of things :) .

 

[Graveyardly]

Hmm, well, I wouldn't say it supposes perfect exchange and communications, but enough exchange and witnessing of the expression of other consciousnesses to have the supposition that others are conscious as well to be one that is not only possible but truly overwhelming, oftentimes in a glorious manner—and when it comes to tender empathy, often in a touching at times wistful manner too.


Our immediate experiences and past experiences form databases of information within our brains, that our brain pulls from and processes; and this available range affects the emotions and ideas that can form within this "personal frame" we have. If candid communicational experiences are sufficiently few and far between, an idea like solipsism can become more appealing due to its refuting evidence being further from sight.

I would argue that the existence of art in general is enough proof of consciousness outside ourselves though, but that would be another tract, haha :).

I sincerely offer respect for investigating the root causes of these ways of thought; it's something I've done in some other posts of mine, but it's something I neglected to touch upon here, haha; so, thank you for covering that crucial aspect :).


Absolutely! Principle of explosion :). If one has one equation that can solve literally everything, that can derive literally any conclusion, without any hitch, it's likely an insane one.

Ultimately, I agree with the whole body of your post. It draws important attention to this key fact: ideological viewpoints often derive from emotional experiences as well, which are usually life experiences. A person's experience with other people totally influences how they think about those other people, and to extents even people in general too.


I would like to conclude that fantastic second sentence, an absolutely stellar footnote to the philosophical aspects of this affair, with this quote from Infinite Jest~ :)


For a key point in the premises as well—the bases which we are operating from.

And the frame of reference that operation begins within is a key factor to be considered as well, for that provides the environment, drives, and affects affecting the inquiry as well. Our own personal frame of reference (influenced by personal experiences, especially those with other people) truly does have a real effect on our thinking methods and thinking preferences—and it is more lucid to nod to the origins of ideas such as this when discussing them, as to give a more lucid etiology of the matter at hand. And I sincerely thank you for bringing this critical function of the matter to hand. May we all make our own personal contributions in any ways we do towards a more lucid etiology of things :) .

You did NOT just quote Infinite Jest omfg, I should have expected people on here be familiar with it to some extent but that was the most "DFW" to a "fuck you" I've ever gotten.

Not that my response to you was intended as a fuck you but I did "close end" the debate ( as you also did stating that "solipsism is dum lol" with slight paraphrasing). It it a very refreshing exchange to have, though as always with DFW I'm left wondering about the things I didn't quite understand.

 

[webb&flow]

though as always with DFW I'm left wondering about the things I didn't quite understand.

I think DFW is an interesting author in the context of this discussion too; I am now reminded some quotes he made about the struggle to express:

How odd I can have all this inside me and to you it's just words.

—The Pale King

What goes on inside is just too fast and huge and all interconnected for words to do more than barely sketch the outlines of at most one tiny little part of it at any given instant.

—Good Old Neon (short story within Oblivion)

In practice though, I feel this is also what happens:

Spoiler: reality

---

On a side note, I really hope my reply to you didn't come off as a "fuck you" at all, haha :). Thank you for your fair and pointed words! ^^ I've already recalled your thoughts on "within a vacuum it's perfect" a few times now, and I look forward to recalling it in times to come as well :). Truly memorable stuff you've noted here: thank you for giving that gift .