Solipsism and related issues (split from idealism thread)

Discussions on the nature of being, existence, reality and knowledge. What is? How do we know?

Solipsism and related issues (split from idealism thread)

Postby ontological_realist on October 22nd, 2018, 10:10 pm 

"You are the only judge of your world, because that's the only world that exists."

If my world is the ONLY world that exists then that means that your world does not exist. Do you agree that your world does not exist?
ontological_realist
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 27 Dec 2015


Re: Metaphysical idealism

Postby BadgerJelly on October 23rd, 2018, 6:02 am 

ontological_realist » October 23rd, 2018, 10:10 am wrote:"You are the only judge of your world, because that's the only world that exists."

If my world is the ONLY world that exists then that means that your world does not exist. Do you agree that your world does not exist?


It means that my world exists for me and your world exists for you - or simply that we are not the same being here or there at any one separate moment etc.,.

Anyone else wish to continue this tail chasing exercise?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5384
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Metaphysical idealism

Postby -1- on October 24th, 2018, 8:11 pm 

ontological_realist » October 22nd, 2018, 10:10 pm wrote:"You are the only judge of your world, because that's the only world that exists."

If my world is the ONLY world that exists then that means that your world does not exist. Do you agree that your world does not exist?

If you exist, then in your world there is an ontologically imagined person who said, "your own world is the only world that exists". In your world I may or may not agree that my world exists or not, but to you that is secondary as for its truth value; because you know that only your world exists.

So from your point of view, you being a person in my world who does not exists, only is a figment of my imagination or a figment in my mental construct of world, you asked me a question in which the conditional has a premise that is not true. Your question in my world is nonsensical, because it assumes I don't exist. Hence, a seeming contradiction is set up, which has a false logical basis, that is, the presumption that i don't exist.

------------

Here, the apparent paradox is set up with the aid of not satisfying all the requirements of the law of the excluded middle, namely, the part that specifies "not in the same respect." Nothing can both be true and not true at the same time and in the same respect. You proved that I exist and don't exist at the same time; but you failed to satisfy that the aspect is the same. The aspects are different; I exist in my respect, and I don't exist in your respect.

------------

Your objection was very smart, very witty and very valid... if only it were satisfactory to the logical conclusion you suggested.
-1-
Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: 21 Jul 2018


Re: Metaphysical idealism

Postby ontological_realist on October 25th, 2018, 8:35 pm 

Hello -1- ,

Thanks for at least not giving a rude and arrogant answer. So the conversation can proceed.

I really do not understand your explanation, so let me ask you some questions:

Do you yourself think that only my world exists?
ontological_realist
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 27 Dec 2015


Re: Metaphysical idealism

Postby -1- on October 26th, 2018, 12:23 pm 

I can only think that my world exists. To your question, "Do you yourself think that only my world exists?" the answer is no. But to you the question you ask yourself "Do I think only my world exist, even though -1- thinks it does not?" the answer is yes.

Yes or no? Depends on the frame of reference. Things can be contradictory but not impossible if they do not happen at the same time; they can be contradictory but not impossible if they happen at the same time, but the frame of reference is different.

For instance, a ball is moving in respect to the tree beside a moving railway car, if the ball is resting on the railway car; but the ball is not moving in respect of the railway car at the same time.
-1-
Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: 21 Jul 2018


Re: Metaphysical idealism

Postby ontological_realist on October 26th, 2018, 7:05 pm 

Hi -1- ,

"For instance, a ball is moving in respect to the tree beside a moving railway car, if the ball is resting on the railway car; but the ball is not moving in respect of the railway car at the same time."

Good, I agree.

"To your question, "Do you yourself think that only my world exists?" the answer is no."

Good, I like clear answers.

Now my question to you is: Do you yourself think that only your world exists and nobody else has his own world?
ontological_realist
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 27 Dec 2015


Re: Metaphysical idealism

Postby -1- on October 26th, 2018, 10:03 pm 

"Now my question to you is: Do you yourself think that only your world exists and nobody else has his own world?"

I see my world exists. Anyone else's world may or may not exist.

There is no proof or overwhelming evidence that other people and their worlds exist. But there is evidence that other people actually exist. The information available to me is sufficient to say that I know I exist, and therefore my perceptions exist; which make up my world. The information available to me is insufficient to categorically say that other people and their respective worlds exist. It is not impossible, but it's not necessarily true, either.
-1-
Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: 21 Jul 2018


Re: Metaphysical idealism

Postby ontological_realist on October 27th, 2018, 8:20 pm 

"There is no proof or overwhelming evidence that other people and their worlds exist."

How much evidence you need to say that your wife (or some other person who is nearest to you) has perceptions?
ontological_realist
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 27 Dec 2015


Re: Metaphysical idealism

Postby -1- on October 28th, 2018, 6:12 am 

"How much evidence you need to say that your wife (or some other person who is nearest to you) has perceptions?"

Well, I have all the evidence to indicate that my wife has perceptions. But that's not the issue. The issue is, who is my wife? Is she a person in reality, or is she a person who exists only as one of my perceptions?

Either way, she has perceptions, in the world of my perceptions. But you tell me: how do I decide if she is real, or if she is a really consistent imagery of my perceptions? THAT is what I think you need to show to me: how to tell the difference between what is real, and what is only a perception to me.

Because both yield the same result; the two are indistinguishable from each other.
-1-
Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: 21 Jul 2018


Re: Metaphysical idealism

Postby -1- on October 28th, 2018, 6:33 am 

Please be careful here, dear Ontological Realist. I said, "She has perceptions, in the world of my perceptions."

This has to be examined a bit, before you (or anyone else) misinterprets it.

The crux is, that JUST BECAUSE she appears to have perceptions, and enough to make her look real, IT DOES NOT necessarily MEAN that she exists in reality. She is my perception; she is consistent in my perceptions of her behaviour in the world of my perceptions, so BY EMPATHY I can safely conclude that she behaves consistently like a person with perceptions. But it is possible for a perception to do that, too, she does not need to be real to show me behaviour consistent with having perceptions.

Since we are at the topic, a little thought-excursion: If it's reality, and we assume reality is consistent in its cause-effect relationships of the objects that are affected in reality (and all objects that are affected in reality, including humans), then if my wife is real, then she satisfies the condition of reality by being consistent.

If in my world, since it is only a world of perceptions, something occurs that is not possible in reality, like my wife grows a second head in two minutes, and talks with one of them and kisses me with the lips of the other head, that would not be consistent with reality. It would be consistent with my world being perceptions.

But my wife never has done anything that denies reality.

Does that mean, she is real?

I don't think that that is a true indication of her being real. Because though my perceptions are capable of showing unreal things happening in the world of perceptions, it can also operate without any different requirements imposed on it, forever consistently how reality would operate.

This above is CRUCIAL in understanding unkelogical surrealism. There is no flaw, there is no ill logic, there is no fallacy in the above. If you can't see that at this moment, please spend some time pondering about it. This is one of the major and most important cornerstones of philosophical insight.
-1-
Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: 21 Jul 2018


Re: Metaphysical idealism

Postby -1- on October 28th, 2018, 7:03 am 

If the above is confusing, let me illustrate it with another, somewhat simpler example.

This is to show you that freedom by differentness does not mean that two systems that are different NECESSARILY behave differently. Much like a wife in reality, and wife in my the world of my perceptions, provide consistently the same perception to me, although one of the two does have the power to provide differing perceptions, that the other wife could not provide, but it is NOT NECESSARY for the different wife to provide those perceptions of behaviour.

==============

So here is the simpler example:

Early computers did multiplication by adding the same number to a running total the number of times that the multiplier was.

For instance, 5 time 25 was computed this way (roughly speaking):
25+25+25+25+25

Newer computers have muliplications built into them:

5 times 25 is five times twenty plus five times five.

The first solution, by the older computers, required at least four operations.

The second solution, with newer computers, requires three operations.

If operations do cost time, and indeed they do, it is worth to use the second argument for the sakes of efficiency and accuracy.

However, consider this:

In the new computers, addition is still available. A computer programmer may write a program that will multiply five by twenty-five not using the multiplication table, which is available, but adding 25 four times to itself.

So a computer programmer does precisely that.
25+25+25+25+25

You are looking at the computing methods, of the older computer, and of the newer computer. You need to decide which computer was used in computing 5 times 25. If you see on one production of program 25+25+25+25+25 and in the other production, also 25+25+25+25+25, then you are incapacitated in telling which computer was used to write which code. Same in reality and perceptions: if the imagery and perceptions of real or imagery objects display no difference, then there is no way for you or for anyone else to tell which is which.

If, however, you are shown two codes: produced on one computer, 25+25+25+25+25, and produced on the other computer, five times twenty plus five times five, then you can be quite sure that the second production of code was produced on the new computer, it couldn't have been done on the old computer. Similarly, if my wife's head grows another head, in a matter of two minutes, then I know that that could not be happening in reality; but just like the newer computer is not expected to stay away from old computing methods, much the same way my world of perceptions in not expected to sway from providing a world of perceptions consistent with how events would play out in reality.

In other words, in a final summary:

If the location of an event in one or in another system can only be told by observing irregularity that is possible in one system, but not possible in the other system, then the lack of this irregularity provides no indication of which system the events are observed in.
-1-
Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: 21 Jul 2018


Re: Metaphysical idealism

Postby -1- on October 28th, 2018, 7:11 am 

One more ensuing corollary:

In a system where many things are possible, it is not impossible to not have all the possible events occur.
-1-
Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: 21 Jul 2018


Re: Solipsism and related issues (split from idealism thread

Postby ontological_realist on October 28th, 2018, 6:54 pm 

Dear -1- ,

If you are saying that what you know about the world is necessarily through your own mind then of course I agree,
and if you are saying that without your mind YOUR WORLD will cease to exist then I agree with that too. But I do not agree if you are saying that without your mind THE WORLD will cease to exist.

Please write clearly in a sentence or two what are you saying.
ontological_realist
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 27 Dec 2015


Re: Solipsism and related issues (split from idealism thread

Postby -1- on October 29th, 2018, 5:29 am 

ontological_realist » October 28th, 2018, 6:54 pm wrote:Dear -1- ,

But I do not agree if you are saying that without your mind THE WORLD will cease to exist.


Where did I say this? Did I say this? You are doing the classical Strawman argument. You attributed some claim to me which I had never uttered, and then you argue against this phantom claim. You can't get any clearer example of the Strawman fallacy than what you just did.
ontological_realist » October 28th, 2018, 6:54 pm wrote:Please write clearly in a sentence or two what are you saying.

Why do you keep on demanding further simplification? I said in very precise, exacting statements what I think. I somehow fear that you now (as you have up to now) insist that I say what YOU think.

I see there is a difficulty maybe, that you do not comprehend what I am saying? And you want me to further simplify my way of saying it? I have no clue where you are coming from, when you demand a further simplification.

I am afraid further simplification is not going to happen. It is not going to happen, for two reasons:

1. I think I have stripped my meaning down to its most basic complexity. If (If) you are too fanatic in not willing to read and comprehend it, or if you unable to do so ("some won't, some can't, some wouldn't, some couldn't"), then that is not something I can help you with.

You are demanding for me to write something you can understand? Then the other reason is
2. I think you wanted to lead me to some conclusion with your questioning,and that did not happen. But I answered all your questions. Yet the conclusion you had wished to force me to was not reached. You are baffled by it? I don't know. But I don't think I have made any logical mistakes in building my case. I gave you the most basic, succinct, and comprehensive solution based on my answers to your questions.

I very basically do not feel responsible for your not understanding my points due to your pretend, self-forced, intentionally ignorant (intentionally ignorant == not willing to accept a valid conclusion that is incompatible with your forethought conclusion) or else natural and normal incapacity.

When you wrote, "Please write clearly in a sentence or two what are you saying." you display your not having understood me, and you try at the same time to put the onus on me for your not comprehending what I said.

Instead of getting a summary which you asked for, if you need further help, I am willing to help you understand my stance, if you POINT OUT THE PRECISE LOGICAL STEPS OR POINTS IN MY ARGUMENTS that you can't or won't comprehend. You must directly quote the parts you don't understand, and say what it is about the part that you don't understand.

CAREFUL, please: do not question the conclusion. I will not answer that. Please only question steps in my logic. You must pinpoint the step and the nature or feature in it that you don't understand. Then I'll reply and will endeavour to make you "get" that step.

One thing you must understand: your demand of me to write in one simple sentence the gist of my point and conclusion is not a fair demand by you.
-1-
Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: 21 Jul 2018



Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests