Refutation of Solipsism?

1. 59

   Dgerrimeaposted 13 years ago

   How does one justify believing in a reality external to one's self? That other minds exist and are not figments of one's imagination?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      cosetteposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      if something occupies space and you can touch it and feel it and smell it and they affect their surroundings, they exist.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         Daniel Carterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Existentialism has a place among rational thought, but it serves no purpose to try to prove the nothing exists and never did, nor ever will.
         
         I agree with cosette. Reality is always subject to interpretation and argument, but I'm real. People in my life are real. I've been to real places. Even dreams are "real." They may not be part of the material world, but they exist. As do thoughts, ideas, etc.
         
         Here's one for you, Dg, who are you without your thoughts? Can you get to a place and not have thoughts, and just "be?" That boils it all down to existing because we exist. Can you get to that place by going beyond thoughts and just "be?"
         
         What do you think, Dg?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Dgerrimeaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You are making assumptions about the reliability of your senses which have not (at least in this thread) been justified. So is cosette, which is I think what she missed when posting in this thread.
            
            
            I believe that thoughts are a function of the brain. I think as long as a brain is alive and conscious it will have thoughts, or if you can completely clear your mind of conscious thoughts it's not for very long at a time, at least not without considerable training.
            
            To address your question specifically, I don't believe I am identical to my thoughts, therefore without my thoughts I am still me. I can't explain what I am in much more detail than that, but the fact that I am is one which I cannot dispute. However I am looking for a sound justification for believing that other people exist independently of me.

            replyreport
   2. 63

      AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Mmmmmm, those are the ones with the chili all over the hotdogs, right?

      replyreport
2. 60

   tantrumposted 13 years ago

   I have five senses to perceive reality.
   
   How can other minds be a figment of my imagination?
   
   Can you perceive minds, apart from your own?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Dgerrimeaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Only five? Do you not consider say balance to be a sense?
      Other minds could be a hallucination of some kind.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         tantrumposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Balance is not a sense. It's a property

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Dgerrimeaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Now you're playing semantics.
            "Balance, equilibrioception, or vestibular sense is the sense which allows an organism to sense body movement, direction, and acceleration, and to attain and maintain postural equilibrium and balance."
            
            From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense#Bala … celeration

            replyreport
            1. 60

               tantrumposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Vestibular sense : A property of the body
               
               are you joking with me ?
               Please tell me!
               I hate to waste time.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Dgerrimeaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  You seem to be coming up with all the punchlines.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Hi Dg:
                     If there is no "self" to make meaning of "reality" there is,  no "self" to consider "solipsism."
                     So I think we have to go back and consider Descartes quote: cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am. Hmmm?

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Dgerrimeaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Hi qwark.
                        
                        "I think therefore I am"; presumably whatever the word 'I' refers to in this quote is the 'self' which the solipsist claims is all that exists. Descarte seems to arrive at the existence of one's self as a self-evident fact which cannot be denied.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Dg:
                           That was my point.
                           if there is no "self" to make meaning of anything, solipsistically speaking, nothing exists.

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              Dgerrimeaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              But we can be certain there is a self. The only question is: is there anything else?

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 Dg:
                                 Only if "it" can be sensed and made meaning of by self.
                                 Of course the reality of "all" is indisputable...but if there is no conscious self, there can be no "awareness" of that reality.
                                 Solipsistically ( there is no reality but self) speaking, if the self doesn't exist nothing exists....even tho absolute reality "IS."

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 59

                                    Dgerrimeaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    By "it" do you mean one's self?
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    But the reality of "all" is not indisputable, only the reality of one's own existence is indisputable.
                                    
                                    
                                    But this is an impossible if, since the solipsistic world view assumes the existence of one's self.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 61

                                       qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       Dg:
                                       I am pissed! I spent about 15 minutes composing an answer to your questions. Because I am using dialup...arghhh, I lost my connection and, of course, everything I wrote was lost..:-( I ain't gonna do it again..sorry. sorry :-(

                                       report
3. 0

   ralwusposted 13 years ago

   Do not wordplay with tantrum. LOL

   replyreport
4. 56

   prettydarkhorseposted 13 years ago

   my hehehe, semantics indeed..
   
   how about things exists because you think of them not experiential at times but then you can feel it like LOVE

   replyreport
   1. 61

      qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Pretty:
      If the "you" doesnt exist, love cannot exist.
      Only if "you" exist can "it" exist.
      So in ref to the term "solipsism" the only reality is you.

      replyreport
      1. 56

         prettydarkhorseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         ok then, How about GOD? I can feel HIM always

         replyreport
         1. 61

            qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Pretty"
            God?
            Beats me!  what is this god thing?

            replyreport
         2. 59

            Dgerrimeaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            How do you define 'god'?

            replyreport
5. 82

   Shadesbreathposted 13 years ago

   At some point you have to accept that you are and reality is.  What possible benefit comes from deconstruction to the point of absurdity?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Shades"
      NONE!
      ..but to discuss it is entertaining.
      I needa warmup. Coffee's cold...:-)

      replyreport
6. 0

   cosetteposted 13 years ago

   if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? yes. its ability to make a noise is not dependent on the presence of a hearing creature. i mean if a phone rings and no one is home, it still makes a noise.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      creepyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      ive never heard one ring when i wasnt home

      replyreport
7. 0

   cosetteposted 13 years ago

   well you've come home, and when you're unlocking the door, you can hear it ring, although technically you're not home, right?

   replyreport
   1. 57

      creepyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      shhh my phones ringing

      replyreport
8. 60

   tantrumposted 13 years ago

   

   replyreport