Solipsism 101

bump

(pls this is one of my fav metaphysics subjects and nobody ever talks about it)

Depends strongly on the ontological construction of reality that they hold to. If they are like Berkeley or Schelling then you are basically a mind within and of God's mind. If they are like the other more explicit solipsists, like some schools of Vedanta or Tantra; then you are the only mind. Your mind is one in the same as the Universal Mind, from that perspective. Some schools of thought adhere to both, others simply claim that there are only minds and no universal mind. Therefore the existence of minds makes reality, nothing else. Which would mean that reality is contingent upon subjects. There's many different ways of viewing this. I personally find panpsychism to be the easiest for materialists to digest if you are trying to understand some form of metaphysical alternative philosophy to the bio-materialism most people make use of. Idealism is so different from the idea of physicalism, you may have trouble grasping it due to the language we all use nowadays in our cultural and social relationships. Its common for people to litter their speech and thinking with materialist notions and ideas, which will affect your ability to get into idealist philosophy. I don't know if you actually care to do this, or if you're just curious about the distinction and nothing more.

materialism is the most extreme form of idealism

I would be interested in learning more about idealism, specifically panpsychism. How do they believe that many minds create reality? What happened before minds existed? Does this suggest there was a creator mind that created the first minds which then created more minds? Or does it suggest that there is a sum mind that is fractalizing into sub-minds?

Solipsism is for hippie faggots who want no personal responsibilty because everything boils down to "nothing can be tested because everyone's perception" despite unassailable truths like 2 + 2 = 4 exist before and after your short time on this Earth.

Please develop critical thinking abilities if you're going to post here.

how do you know that 2 + 2 = 4 isnt a result of your own mind?

nope those are just abstractions, only countable objects exist according to materialism. if numbers are things in themselves then a form of transcendental idealism must be the state of things. You're a fool

plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/

plato.stanford.edu/entries/schelling/

plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/

plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/ (Bertrand Russell, my favorite atheist)

i heard the red pill is horse piss which is pretty fucked up if you are taking it op

nothing. The idea of something only makes sense if there is a subject. This isn't what panpsychists espouse, especially the more cautious ones. But, i like that explanation for that particular worldview (many minds, no universal mind).

Physicalists would argue that phsyics created minds. Doesn't idealism having no clear explanation for the time before minds sort of give credit to materialists/physicalists?

If Mathematics were subjective, no one would get on a goddamn airplane, let alone be able to ride in one that was capable of flight if the measurements were all fucked.

If everything is subjective, then nothing is and you should promptly kys if you truly believe it. Otherwise you waste people's time with pseudo-intellectual masturbation rather than a point of reason.

top kek, just stop believeing in math and it will go away. Unless you arnt the mind that controls reality, which sucks for you.

"If I Close My Eyes And Plug My Ears, It Doesn't Real: An Infants Guide To Math, Science and Other Irritating Realities"

2 + 2 = 4 exists before and after your time on earth as applicable to all objects of possible experience (e.g natural science)
Math can only say things about things of possible experience, not things in themselves. Math, as a synthetic a priori cognition, is only made possible by pure a priori intuitions that exist in the mind. This pure a priori intuition is space, and we use this intuition to make synthetic judgements like in math.
Space, cause and effect, time - these are forms that we must necessarily have innately prior to any experience, because we must have them to form any universality from our perceptions, hence, to have any experience at all in the first place.

The broader confusion here is concerning things in themselves, and also, what these doctrines mean for natural science. For the latter, natural science is secure in that we can always make apodictic judgements about the world of possible experience. So we can say "real" things about space and time and mathematics and everything else, but only in so far as they are experiencable, or, in so far as they conform to our faculties of understanding.

For the former, the thing in itself is not a material thing, and I think this is where the confusion stems. People are thinking of thing-in-itself as a corporeal substance, perhaps they think this could be something like an atom or a quark. So an a priori construction of the simple substance is like this- it can't have any extension, because extension implies divisibility or composition. It can't take up any space, or be in space, or be in time, etc., and the mutual determinations of these simple substances can be viewed by humans as the way in which the human is affected by these determinations (but only that, nothing about the things themselves), and furthermore, put through a filter of space and time which exists in the mind prior to experience, in order to construct universality and hence the kind of experience we are familiar with.

We absolutely cannot make an apodictic judgement that math, logic, cause and effect, etc adhere to things in themselves.

terrible posts btw, apply yourselves

I'm not questioning the way humans assign meaning to an abstraction in order to form cohesion of thought. I'm stating that the abstraction; that which we give meaning, it is, in of itself, a pillar of the universe and a concrete starting point from which logic extrapolates from.

Would you agree that the abstraction on which humans assign meaning, would still exist without humans around to assign meaning to it or is the abstraction AND the assigned meaning is inconsequential to its existence because it resonates from individual perception?

It doesn't make sense to say that the abstractions would still exist. This is like saying whether the human's experience would still exist. I am not denying noumena - we are not the first cause of everything we experience, our experience has a correlate in reality. If someone who is colour blind perceives a red box as green, when this person dies is the box still green? It doesn't make any sense to talk about our representations of things like that. The box will continue to exist in-itself, whatever underlying fabric the universe has there will remain the same. Our *experience of space* is not real, it is an appearance. If there are simple substances who's determinations with eachother appear to us as space, saying the distance between two things is 10 inches is only saying that in our framework of experience, how we experience space, there are 10 inches between two things. The actual real relationships between simple substances does not exist within space, the 10 inches is not real, it is some combination of determinations which are unknown to us. You can say that space will continue to exist when humans are gone, but this is just saying that the relationships between simple substances, if viewed by a human, would be measurable in mathematics, which is a form of a priori creative construction using the human intuition of space. This is not different from saying that the red box would still be green when viewed by someone who perceives it as green.

We can say with certainty that our measurements of how things appear to us will always be consistent, but we can't say anything about the thing in itself. We are saying we are always affected the same way and nothing else.

So if our experience has a corrolate in reality, reality then exists outside of our connection to it and our experience with it. Correct?

I think so, but the point about mathematics is that it's possible only through the faculty of space that exists in us, which makes the experience of space possible. We are measuring space by space, which is a concept inside of us, and not inside of things. Mathematics can only serve to measure and describe things as they appear to us, and never to things in themselves. The concept of math is not something applicable to things or that things operate by.

In agreement with your exposition and negating the use of mathematics as a tool to test reality because it's something humans do to quanitfy reality, we can thus reasonably assume that regardless of human measurement that reality itself exists outside of human interaction or quantification.

If this is so, "reality" is now two entities; the Actual and the Perceived. If the Actual exists seperately from the Perceived, the Actual has no regard for the Perceived in the sense relating to your green/red box example that despite the fact the box is either green OR red doesn't negate that the box has color or that the box exists.

This is why I can't reconcile Solipsism to a credible philosophy. It causes one to question the very nature of existence but stops short because the Perceived relies solely on the Actual while at the same time, denies the Actual existing for the Perceived to even divined from.

...

lol
/thread

Rolled 1, 1, 3 - 3 = 2 (3d3)
Dawkins is a wanker but deserves some great credit for inventing/describing/discovering the concept of memes.

How about we just play pretend? I can get you a blue wig and a Japanese school uniform. Just make sure you shave.

ahahahahahahahahahahahaha omg hahahahahahaha holy shit. First "ChapoTrapHouse invented Volcel" and now this hahahahahahahahahaha. I can't, its too much ignorance

incorrect they argue that minds don't exist, mind is an epiphenomena that can be ignored.
No not at all. First off that's not even what most Idealists argue for at all, there is just one small school of thought within idealism and panspsychism that avoids a universal mind. even then many of them are vedantists and would just say that reality itself is a construct and that history is an illusory echo of the one mind's birthing of reality, the embryonic carcass and umbilical cord of the birth of the one mind that compells reality to be. Second, simply saying that there was nothing at all before minds does not then default to matter. Matter within an idealist perception is an inversion of thought, or calcified concentrated thought of whatever mind or god or intelligence. Therefore without a mind, it is irrelevant and wouldn't be something worth talking about. Just like a mind isn't worth talking about to a physicalist who can never prove a mind's existence or work with mind, only brain matter.

You can't take an idealist interpretation of mind to a materialist and ask them to deal with it, anymore than you can take a materialist conception of matter and as an idealist to deal with it. They'll both just say its irrelevant without the context of the other side.

From the typical Universal Mind perspective, reality came into being when it was thought into being by the Universal Mind. It had no existence either as illusory matter or thought prior to that. Our minds may influence its thoughts or they may simply be products of its thoughts unable to influence its concretized thoughts, which is the view a large number of Spiritualists take. Or you could take a perspective of modern occultism and say that we can influence the thoughts of the Divine Mind and are actively working in congress with it to manipulate matter and evolve its mind within itself. There are many views but none of them default to matter being prior to mind, by definition they can't. The only way that would make sense is if you can't mentally imagine matter as a product of mind and thus nonexistent in its abscence, which is exactly what you just did either willfully or unknowingly. I hope that makes some sense.

TLDR: Mind is a non-issue for physicalists, its called epiphenomena. Matter is a non-issue for the few Idealists who just think that our minds create reality and don't believe in a universal mind. It would just be some form of abstract potentiality within nothingness, the seed within the void. But for most idealists its a non-issue as they believe the universe itself is projected by a divine intelligent mind and thus is brought into being by something beyond being and time. Ergo the need for matter proceeds from the existence of minds and does not precede them.

once mathematical logic and quantification of the real is removed, logical impossilities like mind creating reality and reality being beyond perception are totally reconcilable. One would simply say that the thing in itself, the Subject is the ground of reality, the product of itself and the subject of itself. "He that knoweth, he that knoweth", if something is the substance, ground and process of reality all at once it breaks all contradictions that dualistic mathematical 1's and 0's logic would try to arrest it with. The point is to free the Subject from the inherently anti-Subject proclivities of the Newtonian-Cartesian 1-0 mathematical logic that we use to make predictions about matter outside of our internal worlds. Of course this might suggest, if true, that this subject is really something other than just a singular human and would elevate the status of Subject to something far more meaningful and powerful. Which in turn would require a new philosophical outlook beyond solipsism. which I think is the mature line of thinking. Solipsism ends in some kind of hybridized panentheistic idealism.

zxczxc