What’s Real? metaphysical solipsism asserts that nothing exists externally to this one mind

High Art

They call me Dexter St. Jacques
Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
3,517
Reputation
1,596
Daps
17,918
Reppin
Your conscious
The theory is just saying the only thing provable by you is your own mind and that you are a thinking thing. Any physical sensation is cast into something less than absolute certainty
It does bring up the idea of the power of shared perception and how much that shapes how we both "view" and actually view the world.
 

RickyDiBiase

American Born Black
Joined
May 25, 2022
Messages
1,264
Reputation
293
Daps
5,800
Reppin
Cap City
Concepts like this are part of the root of philosophy and an exercise in critical thinking. there's nothing wrong with them. More than that, being in state of struggle often gives rise to ideas and discussions such as this since such situations will inevitably have someone questioning their existence and the manner of the world.

Absolute bullshyt. The struggles of the modern era aren’t nearly as complex as people think they are. Motherfukkers just don’t care. That’s the problem. You think captured slaves chained to one another pontificated and thought about the persecution they faced was in the abstract? All in their mind? No. Instead those that could, did what they could to be free. They didn’t rely on this Eurocentric concepts they relied on spirit. Comradery. Community. They took action. Integrity
 

BigScust

Under construction
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
43,986
Reputation
5,539
Daps
88,961
I get that but what about something provable by surprise? The premise is that u control your own reality..

Not necessarily control. Only that your own reality is the only thing provable to you as the observer. There is no implicit indication of power or control.

It does bring up the idea of the power of shared perception and how much that shapes how we both "view" and actually view the world.

Yes but even then this theory states that no other observers are demonstrably provable as anything other than something you are observing. Every seemingly sentient being other than the observer can therefore be NPC for lack of a better term. Or just a figment of imagination. A problem then arises as to where the information is coming from to be perceived in the first place
 

BigScust

Under construction
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
43,986
Reputation
5,539
Daps
88,961
280px-Braininvat.jpg
 

cheek100

Truuu
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
15,625
Reputation
3,419
Daps
60,370
Not necessarily control. Only that your own reality is the only thing provable to you as the observer. There is no implicit indication of power or control.



Yes but even then this theory states that no other observers are demonstrably provable as anything other than something you are observing. Every seemingly sentient being other than the observer can therefore be NPC for lack of a better term. Or just a figment of imagination. A problem then arises as to where the information is coming from to be perceived in the first place
I feel like that didn’t address my question well enough. How does this correlate to the element of surprise? Or an unexpected event?
Metaphysics is ok in theory but it gets iffy when u introduce time. Specifically whether time PASSES or FLOWS.
 

BigScust

Under construction
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
43,986
Reputation
5,539
Daps
88,961
I feel like that didn’t address my question well enough. How does this correlate to the element of surprise? Or an unexpected event?
Metaphysics is ok in theory but it gets iffy when u introduce time. Specifically whether time PASSES or FLOWS.

I just posted the brain in a vat picture

Maybe that's helpful(?)

I'm not fully comfortable trying to explain this theory too much in depth because i dont feel truly adequate in doing so
 

BigScust

Under construction
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
43,986
Reputation
5,539
Daps
88,961
Me either :pachaha:

I subscribe to it to a certain degree in the sense of what is truly confirmable by my own mind and faculties but the more I explain it, the more my certainty gets tested and thus i almost feel that i am being logically contradictory by pushing the boundaries. It's strange. It has to be succinct in nature
 

Amo Husserl

All Star
Joined
May 24, 2022
Messages
1,434
Reputation
482
Daps
3,920
In metaphysics, metaphysical solipsism is the variety of idealism which asserts that nothing exists externally to this one mind, and since this mind is the whole of reality then the "external world" was never anything more than an idea. It can also be expressed by the assertion "there is nothing external to these present experiences", in other words, no reality exists beyond whatever is presently being sensed. The aforementioned definition of solipsism entails the non-existence of anything presently unperceived including the external world, causation, other minds (including God's mind or a subconscious mind), the past or future, and a subject of experience. Despite their ontological non-existence, these entities may nonetheless be said to "exist" as useful descriptionsof the various experiences and thoughts that constitute 'this' mind.

The argument in favor of solipsism:​

  • The only thing one has direct access to is the contents of one's own mind (one's mental states). What one knows most certainly are one's mental states – one's thoughts, experiences, emotions, and so on.
  • Just because one sees an object does not mean that the object exists. One could be dreaming or hallucinating. There is no direct conceptual or logically necessary link between the mental and the physical.
  • The experiences of a given person are necessarily private to that person. The contents of one's mind are the only things one has direct access to. One cannot get ‘outside’ of one's mind to encounter any other objects including other persons. Other minds are even more removed.

The basic form of the argument:​

  • Person's mental states are the only things they have access to.
  • One cannot conclude the existence of anything outside of their mental states.
    • Therefore, only their mental states exist.

Are you fielding responses for a metaphysics course?
:pachaha:

Solipsism affirms subjective normalcy.
How do humans know how to use language to communicate for experiential objectivity?
Cars =/= skyscrapers.
One cannot conclude the existence of anything outside their mental states and theirs only exists because it is all they have access to?
How do you rationalize societies, nations and cultures sharing ideas and putting these ideas to the test against themselves and others for survival?
Solipsism examines individual agency.
Service animals aren't human although humans rely on their senses for survival.
Canary in coalmine.
Absolute bullshyt. The struggles of the modern era aren’t nearly as complex as people think they are. Motherfukkers just don’t care. That’s the problem. You think captured slaves chained to one another pontificated and thought about the persecution they faced was in the abstract? All in their mind? No. Instead those that could, did what they could to be free. They didn’t rely on this Eurocentric concepts they relied on spirit. Comradery. Community. They took action. Integrity
 

BigScust

Under construction
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
43,986
Reputation
5,539
Daps
88,961
A really big “therefore”. Essentially says “because I cannot prove X, X does not exist”.

A trash ass argument to be frank.

Because I cannot prove X, X is undeterminable in nature

Again, my main problem with this is that there is enough doubt placed to then doubt ones own mental state itself. How do you as the observer even know if you are an observer? What is observation at all?

It's somewhat circular and doesnt lead to many fruitful conclusions
 

BigScust

Under construction
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
43,986
Reputation
5,539
Daps
88,961
Going too far down this particular rabbit hole leads to madness

Does 1 plus 1 equal 2?

Well, not always. 1 elephant plus 1 cheetah equals 1 elephant and 1 cheetah. 1 plus 1 equals 1 plus 1.

That's the type of conclusion you get to from this because numbers themselves are not observable other than as concepts denoting the amount of particular things.
 
Last edited:

Double Burger With Cheese

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
22,603
Reputation
14,350
Daps
135,855
Reppin
Atlanta
Going too far down this particular rabbit hole leads to madness

Does 1 plus 1 equal 2?

Well, not always. 1 elephant plus 1 cheetah equals 1 elephant and 1 cheetah. 1 plus 1 equals 1 plus 1.

That's the type of conclusion you get to from this

On God. I’ve told these Bill Nye the science guy ass nikkas several times that all that philosophizing about life is not good for the brain.
 
Top