Jump to content


Photo

Solipsism


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#41 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 31 August 2009 - 04:50 PM

I see you’re still practicing the “I can equivocate out of any sticky wicket by not using real logic” brand of rationality.

View Post


Please show me where I have equivocated. A direct quote please.

Arch, you and I and everyone else here, knows of you existence, my existence and their respective existences.  You can pretend all day long that Solipsism cannot be defeated as a logic. But, at the end of the day, you know that “Just aint true”.

View Post


Is that your argument then? That you just know it "ain't true".

The only person that can continue to disbelieve reality is the person who has disjoined themselves from reality.  Are you that person Arch?

View Post


No, I've already said I personally think Solipsism is silly, but that is a choice on my part. I can't prove that it is wrong, I just think it is.

Regards,

Arch.

#42 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 31 August 2009 - 04:52 PM

I want you to consider something here. You can convince a solipsist that solipsism is wrong, through logic, the moment they accept that logic is real apart from themselves. ;)

View Post

And that I think is the problem. How would you go about convincing them logic is real apart from themselves?

Regards,

Arch.

#43 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 31 August 2009 - 05:35 PM

And that I think is the problem. How would you go about convincing them logic is real apart from themselves?

View Post

You can't force anybody to believe anything regardless of how reasonable it is. As a Christian I believe I am obligated to get out of God's way because He's smarter and more powerful than I am. I'm just the messenger boy. You see, there is no intellectual trick to getting people to receive truth. It all comes back to revelation and a humility to receive.

#44 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 31 August 2009 - 05:58 PM

You can't force anybody to believe anything regardless of how reasonable it is.

View Post


Again, I'm pretty sure we're on the same page. Just to be certain though, I think solipsism is pretty unreasonable. But just because I think it unreasonably doesn't mean I can prove it wrong. Would you agree?

Regards,

Arch.

#45 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 31 August 2009 - 06:03 PM

Again, I'm pretty sure we're on the same page. Just to be certain though, I think solipsism is pretty unreasonable. But just because I think it unreasonably doesn't mean I can prove it wrong. Would you agree?

View Post

It depends on the presuppositions at work. This is why philosophy is so important. There is science and then there is the philosophy of science. Which one comes first?

#46 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 31 August 2009 - 06:09 PM

It depends on the presuppositions at work. This is why philosophy is so important. There is science and then there is the philosophy of science. Which one comes first?

View Post

Not particularly fussy. If someone can use any brand of logic to defeat the idea of solipsism I'll be pretty impressed ;)

#47 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 31 August 2009 - 06:17 PM

Not particularly fussy. If someone can use any brand of logic to defeat the idea of solipsism I'll be pretty impressed ;)

View Post

There are three basal aspects of logic:

The Law of Identity

The Law of Non-contradiction

The Law of excluded Middle


If a solipsist were to acknowledge these as real apart from themselves, they would no longer be solipsists. Just look at Identity. If a solipsist were to acknowledge any other entity's identity as true apart from their imagination then... solipsism logically defeated, period.

#48 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 31 August 2009 - 06:43 PM

There are three basal aspects of logic:

The Law of Identity

The Law of Non-contradiction

The Law of excluded Middle


If a solipsist were to acknowledge these as real apart from themselves, they would no longer be solipsists. Just look at Identity. If a solipsist were to acknowledge any other entity's identity as true apart from their imagination then... solipsism logically defeated, period.

View Post


Law of Identity:
In logic, the law of identity states that an object is the same as itself: A ≡ A. Any reflexive relation upholds the law of identity.


I don't think any of these logics can be used to completely defeat solipsism. I agree that if a solipsist were to acknowledge another's identity it would defeat their world view...but why would they? You have to give them a reason to reject their worldview first, and that's the part I don't think anyone can do.

Regards,

Arch.

#49 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 31 August 2009 - 06:54 PM

There are three basal aspects of logic:

The Law of Identity

The Law of Non-contradiction

The Law of excluded Middle


If a solipsist were to acknowledge these as real apart from themselves, they would no longer be solipsists. Just look at Identity. If a solipsist were to acknowledge any other entity's identity as true apart from their imagination then... solipsism logically defeated, period.

View Post


And, amazingly Adam, the denials will still come. The logic you are using is sound, and the reasoning of a solid foundation. But, the denials will deafen themselves from the weight of their own noise just to remain in denial.

I might suggest the following:

There are several innate principles in the human mind that we do not derive from our senses.

I’m only going to talk about the principle of “Sufficient Reason”, because, this principle alone is enough to defeat solipsism, and anyone who attempts to defend it. In this principle it’s stated that “Nothing is without a reason”; or meaning, everything has a reason or cause. This is the grounds of ALL true propositions and it is known to be true analytically. And here’s the thing: You cannot deny it without using it. That is, you must have a sufficient reason for even denying the principle of sufficient reason, in which case you affirm it in the very process of denying it.

In other words, the solipsist has to use “Sufficient Reason” to deny the “Sufficient Reason” for reality or for the “Sufficient Reason” that you and I and everyone else actually exists.

I like the following quote:

“Is it not an astonishing set of coincidences—astonishing, that is to anyone who doubts an external world—that everybody sees essentially the same phaneron? We walk the same streets of the same cities. We find the same buildings at the same locations. Two people can see the same spiral galaxy through a telescope. Not only that, they see the same spiral structure. The hypothesis that there is an external world, not dependent on human minds, made of something, is so obviously useful and so strongly confirmed by experience down through the ages that we can say without exaggerating that it is better confirmed than any other empirical hypothesis. So useful is the posit that it is almost impossible for anyone except a madman or a professional metaphysician to comprehend a reason for doubting it.” - Martin Gardner



But, remember, the liar will still lie. The denier will still deny, and the time waster will continue to waste time. “Oh what a tangled web we weave”.

#50 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 31 August 2009 - 07:06 PM

Very well said, Ron. Thank you.

#51 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 31 August 2009 - 07:56 PM

I’m only going to talk about the principle of “Sufficient Reason”, because, this principle alone is enough to defeat solipsism, and anyone who attempts to defend it. In this principle it’s stated that “Nothing is without a reason”; or meaning, everything has a reason or cause. This is the grounds of ALL true propositions and it is known to be true analytically. And here’s the thing: You cannot deny it without using it. That is, you must have a sufficient reason for even denying the principle of sufficient reason, in which case you affirm it in the very process of denying it.

View Post


Okay, no problem. Go with the assumption that you are a figment of my imagination.
The reason I have invented you is to keep myself company in what is otherwise an empty world. This imagining has a reason.

In other words, the solipsist has to use “Sufficient Reason” to deny the “Sufficient Reason” for reality or for the “Sufficient Reason” that you and I and everyone else actually exists.

View Post


Yes, you have to use sufficient reason to deny it...but what if you don't deny it? I think you can use it to support solipsism.

But, remember, the liar will still lie. The denier will still deny, and the time waster will continue to waste time. “Oh what a tangled web we weave”.

View Post


Come on Ron, there is no need for this. The crux of this quote it: "Agree with me or you are a liar and a time waster".

You need to consider the alternative that you are just wrong. Don't be so pompous to assume everything you say is truth and that anyone who disagrees is wrong. With all due respect, please refrain from these kinds of posts. It does nothing to further the philosophical learning and only incites anger.

Regards,

Arch.

#52 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 01 September 2009 - 04:05 AM

Come on Ron, there is no need for this. The crux of this quote it: "Agree with me or you are a liar and a time waster".

View Post

I've been wondering how to address this because there is a common theme that I see anytime that a Christian addresses the issue of truth either from one perspective or the other as if it's a great offense when a Christian points out that there is truth to be had and lies to be mired in:

So teaching children evolution is indoctrination but teaching children about God is education, simply because in your opinion evolution is a lie? You and I both know that’s very biased definition.

View Post

Follow the link to what our new member was responding to and you see the knee-jerk reaction to a statement that anybody should agree with on face value.

You should agree with Ron's statement as well.

#53 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 01 September 2009 - 05:10 AM

Please show me where I have equivocated. A direct quote please.

View Post


Okay, I’ll just grab a few of the closes ones:

In the face of real logic (in this case the principle of “Sufficient Reason”)

Okay, no problem. Go with the assumption that you are a figment of my imagination.
The reason I have invented you is to keep myself company in what is otherwise an empty world. This imagining has a reason.

View Post


That imagining has no reason, so you attempt to use the principle of sufficient reason, to discredit the principle of sufficient reason. And now I predict you’ll dawdle and delay to waste our time AND equivocate that you didn’t indeed use the principle of sufficient reason (while the whole time using it in your equivocation).


I don't think any of these logics can be used to completely defeat solipsism. I agree that if a solipsist were to acknowledge another's identity it would defeat their world view...but why would they? You have to give them a reason to reject their worldview first, and that's the part I don't think anyone can do.

View Post


And you just totally contradicted yourself in the above quote. The only way to defeat a solipsist is to prove their logic isn’t logical. And that is done using real logic! But, no doubt they’ll cavil and hedge, just like you did in the quote above, and remain in denial until they (and your) come to their senses.

Is that your argument then? That you just know it "ain't true".

View Post

No, it’s just a part of the commonsense portion of the argument. I like the way you attempt to cull my sentence to a manageable two words; a common tactic of the equivocator. I guess that’s the best you can do.

No, I've already said I personally think Solipsism is silly, but that is a choice on my part. I can't prove that it is wrong, I just think it is.

View Post


Then quit pretending that Solipsism cannot be logically defeated Arch. Just because you have so hard a time letting go doesn’t mean you can continue to dither on the subject.

#54 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 01 September 2009 - 06:34 AM

--snip--
I like the following quote:

“Is it not an astonishing set of coincidences—astonishing, that is to anyone who doubts an external world—that everybody sees essentially the same phaneron? We walk the same streets of the same cities. We find the same buildings at the same locations. Two people can see the same spiral galaxy through a telescope. Not only that, they see the same spiral structure. The hypothesis that there is an external world, not dependent on human minds, made of something, is so obviously useful and so strongly confirmed by experience down through the ages that we can say without exaggerating that it is better confirmed than any other empirical hypothesis. So useful is the posit that it is almost impossible for anyone except a madman or a professional metaphysician to comprehend a reason for doubting it.” - Martin Gardner

View Post



Okay I just want to point out that as wacky as Solipsism is this statement still does not disprove it to the Solipsist.

Why would the Solipsist's mental creations see something he himself does not see. Why would they experience something he cannot see himself? These would be no reason.

Yes the last few of these pages have focused on Solipsism, but remember it was not an Atheist who started talking about it. No moderator has said, "okay this is enough of this topic, lets get back to the thread" So no one here is being a time waster. Its just a few people who disagree with each other.

One one side someone is saying "look I can logically prove Solipsism false". On the other side you have someone saying "I personally believe that Solipsim to be false, but I doubt you can logically defeat a Solipsist from his position."

Then the adhominims fly. If you would just take a moment you'll see who is throwing out the personal attacks without really backing up their arguments.

#55 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 01 September 2009 - 09:22 AM

Okay I just want to point out that as wacky as Solipsism is this statement still does not disprove it to the Solipsist.

Why would the Solipsist's mental creations see something he himself does not see.  Why would they experience something he cannot see himself?  These would be no reason.

Yes the last few of these pages have focused on Solipsism, but remember it was not an Atheist who started talking about it.  No moderator has said, "okay this is enough of this topic, lets get back to the thread"  So no one here is being a time waster.  Its just a few people who disagree with each other. 

One one side someone is saying "look I can logically prove Solipsism false".  On the other side you have someone saying "I personally believe that Solipsim to be false, but I doubt you can logically defeat a Solipsist from his position."

Then the adhominims fly.  If you would just take a moment you'll see who is throwing out the personal attacks without really backing up their arguments.

View Post



Man I wish I had an equivocating, back-flipping, quibbling emoticon for situations just like this :( :)

It’s not that the Solipsist doesn’t see reality, it’s that they “Don’t Want” to see reality. The reality smacks them right in the face every time they open their eyes. And to pretend that it doesn’t detract from that reality. Nor doe’s the wishy-washy, Namby-pamby excuses (sans the faux “I don’t believe in Solipsism…“But”) posited here so-far. :D

Solipsism is refuted, and all the backing up has been done. But I think in order for you and Arch to finally come to grips with that reality, you have to admit a lot of other things as well.

#56 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 01 September 2009 - 02:08 PM

I've been wondering how to address this because there is a common theme that I see anytime that a Christian addresses the issue of truth either from one perspective or the other as if it's a great offense when a Christian points out that there is truth to be had and lies to be mired in:

Follow the link to what our new member was responding to and you see the knee-jerk reaction to a statement that anybody should agree with on face value.

You should agree with Ron's statement as well.

View Post


The upside is that I have Arch on ignore mode (it's been almost two months now I think), so the only time I see any of his cartoonish comments is when someone else replies to them.

The other end is that I was commenting to your post on defeating Solipsism with logic, and Arch continues to feel the itch to fight his losing battle against the wind mills by misinterpreting (or purposefully twisting) my statements.

I don’t expect Arch to agree with me Adam, he’s having a hard enough time agreeing with the laws of logic. :D

#57 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 01 September 2009 - 03:49 PM

Man I wish I had an equivocating, back-flipping, quibbling emoticon for situations just like this  B)  :)

It?s not that the Solipsist doesn?t see reality, it?s that they ?Don?t Want? to see reality. The reality smacks them right in the face every time they open their eyes. And to pretend that it doesn?t detract from that reality. Nor doe?s the wishy-washy, Namby-pamby excuses (sans the faux ?I don?t believe in Solipsism??But?) posited here so-far. :D

Solipsism is refuted, and all the backing up has been done. But I think in order for you and Arch to finally come to grips with that reality, you have to admit a lot of other things as well.

View Post


look we all agree here. but the problem is we are on the outside looking in.

what i mean by that is none of us practice this phylosphy so we cansay for certain that it is wacky.

to a solsispist we would just be his imagination running wild talking gibberish about this so called 'reality'.

that is the point arch and i have been saying. unfortunately some people refuse to be on the same page as us. :(

its almost as if we have been having 2 dsifferent conversation.

#58 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 01 September 2009 - 04:44 PM

Hey Javabean,

Can I ask a question that can help drive the wedge further? :D

I have heard many atheists say that if Christianity, or a creator in general, were so obvious then there would be no doubters. Everybody would be convinced by the proof. First, have you heard that argument? Second, do you think it is reasonable?

#59 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 01 September 2009 - 04:46 PM

I've been wondering how to address this because there is a common theme that I see anytime that a Christian addresses the issue of truth either from one perspective or the other as if it's a great offense when a Christian points out that there is truth to be had and lies to be mired in

View Post


Oh there's no doubt there is truth to be had, and people will often lie, even unwittingly. I have no problem with that. What I don't like is that Ron implies that he is the only one capable of telling the truth and that everyone else is the liar. And not just this once. He is always right. It's this kind of intellectual dishonesty that I find annoying.

You should agree with Ron's statement as well.

View Post


A liar will lie, the denier will continue to deny... No, I don't really have any problem with the statement itself. I just don't like the way Ron has set himself up as the truth teller, thus implying I am the liar. It may even be he is right...but to imply it before the discussion is finished is incredibly arrogant.

The upside is that I have Arch on ignore mode (it's been almost two months now I think), so the only time I see any of his cartoonish comments is when someone else replies to them.


Well that explains a lot :D I guess I'll stop replying to Ron's posts in the hope I'll get an intelligent answer. It also explains why some of his response posts have been a little off, he's only getting snippets of my posts and missing all the middle ground.

Pity...he was able to warp his thinking into interesting shapes. Made for some very insightful posts. Never to mind...

Regards,

Arch.

#60 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 01 September 2009 - 04:56 PM

Oh there's no doubt there is truth to be had, and people will often lie, even unwittingly. I have no problem with that. What I don't like is that Ron implies that he is the only one capable of telling the truth and that everyone else is the liar. And not just this once. He is always right. It's this kind of intellectual dishonesty that I find annoying.

View Post

I know it's easy to jump to conclusions but it's not based on what he said but the implications of what he believes. Now with that said, the implications of anything I say to you is based on the belief that I think you need to be saved from your sins and that you're going to Hell unless you get this salvation.

With such a strong belief dividing us, we've managed to have a relationship of mutual respect through this, haven't we?

It is a two way street to communicate with people who disagree with you but if statements can be respected and understood on face value, aren't the implications best kept on the side to put effort in to exploring shared common ground?

Say someone actually disagreed with Ron and thought that people don't lie, they are simply living their lives 'human style' and this thing we call lying is just the way it is and it's normal. The shared common ground just got reeled back some didn't it?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users