Alright sounds good. Now we need to write a political treatise, which we shall extend from the metaphysical foundations of your system.
It being the case that your theory is right, how is man to conduct himself politically and economically?
In the same way man now conducts himself politically and economically.We can trace Hobbeses leviathan directly back to his materialism, for instance. Now what do we do with your theory?
The reliability of my perception generally however, is backed with empirical evidence.
Judgment can be affected by confirmation bias and to a lesser extent it seems even perception is affected by confirmation bias. But more importantly is to tackle judgement of situations, the low hanging fruit of distortion.
phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
This suggests a dependency relation in which objects, persons, etc. cannot appear unless you are present.
phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
This suggests a dependency relation in which objects, persons, etc. cannot appear unless you are present.
It doesn't suggest that at all.
It is merely a logical possibility that counters another logical possibility that the objects exist regardless of us being present and don't simply "appear", they are there and vulnerable to being perceived by anything with the ability to perceive it, including automated cameras for example.
Solipsism is fun and all but ultimately doesn't have much probability of being viable considering our percepts are typically validated by other conscious beings and their reports of percepts.
phenomenal_graffiti wrote:But other conscious beings and their reports of percepts are made up of oneself, and are not things that are not made up of one's own subjective experience. Existence only appears in the form of oneself, one's subjective experience, and the things constructed out of/made up of one's own subjective experience. It does not appear in the form of another person's subjective experience. Solipsism, while it bases it's strength on the first statement in this paragraph, takes things too far to say that given that existence only appears in the form of oneself, one's subjective experience (as opposed to the subjective experience of any other being in existence), and the things one experiences that are actually constructs made up of one's subjective experience (this negatively proven by death)----one's mind or oneself is the only thing that exists.
I don't go that far, I'm with other people that say that other people and conscious beings exist, but the truth is, I can only believe and have faith that other consciousnesses exist.
phenomenal_graffiti wrote:Solipsism is "half right": it is probably wrong that one's mind is the only thing that exists and that when one dies, reality ceases to exist, but...existence still only appears in the form of a single person and that which that person experiences, and this is the most obvious fact about existence if anyone is willing to be honest. Given that existence only appears in the form a single person and that which the person experiences, there is no evidence of the existence of everything that is not the person and that which the person experiences and as such the existence of everything that is not a person and that which the person experiences must be accepted merely on faith.
Given the above:
1. A solipsist is someone who believes that only one's consciousness exists, and nothing other than the self exists in the whole of non-person infinity.
2. A non-solipsist is someone who notes that one's consciousness is the only thing that demonstrates it exists, but does not believe only one's consciousness exists and that nothing other than the self exists in the whole of non-person infinity.
Just because everything is perceived by the mind does not mean that everything is mind dependent in any absolute sense
Things perceived by the senses are taken to be objects in and of themselves rather than just imaginary mental constructs
Something does not have to be perceived in order for it to exist
since that would suggest causation between the perceiver and the thing being perceived
Were that true it would mean that the observable Universe for virtually all of its existence did not exist for there was nothing to perceive such existence
Were the external world merely a product of my imagination then I would be able to manipulate it anyway I wanted to but I cannot do that and nor can anyone else
Such a limitation brings me to the logical conclusion that that world is therefore mind independent even though my mind still perceives everything that I experience
Solipsism may be incapable of falsification but that does not mean it is true
Is thirst a perception? Is hunger a perception? Is the sensation of "up" as balance a perception? What about pain?
In the case of what has become a shoe... there was a time when what has become known as a shoe did not exist save as an idea in the mind of a person with sore feet. And it's not like the shoe was imagined in it's final state. It evolved into a shoe and along the way it evolved into a slipper, a sneaker and a sandal as well.
I and most everyone else considers it knowledge, not faith. Other conscious beings of their reports of percepts that are drastically different from our own is evidence enough. The fact that someone else can see something that we couldn't comprehend is a fair dose of proof to consider solipsism a faith and not "non-solipsism" as a faith.
I agree, "belief" is the added element to be a solipsist. And anything can believe whatever they would like. Yet philosophy ends where belief begins, I say. That is when it turns into religion.
phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
But other conscious beings reporting their percepts and that someone else can see something we can't comprehend is, or appears, as an illusion of the existence of these things in the form of one's subjective experience taking the shape of or "Mystique-ing" into the form of the reports, and in the form of a concept that the subject finds it cannot comprehend. This is not actually proof of the existence of other people, but one's own consciousness taking on forms that the subject (another, yet the central "constant" of the forms one's subjective experience takes)thinks or believes is a doppelganger of things outside one's consciousness.
Thus "knowledge" of the existence of other people is certainly not experienced knowledge, as one can only experience oneself.
The process of perception begins with an object in the real world, known as the distal stimulus or distal object
Thus "knowledge" of the existence of other people is certainly not experienced knowledge, as one can only experience oneself.
It is experienced knowledge, through our sensory perceptions. The only way to experience knowledge of anything.
Are we imagining other beings talking to each other in foreign tongues that we cannot understand yet they somehow do?
Your belief is full of complexities that don't make any sense. How are there other languages that we do not know about, if nobody else really exists?
Are we imagining other beings talking to each other in foreign tongues that we cannot understand yet they somehow do? I'ts bizarre.
How does all the historical information make any sense?
What's the purpose of learning everything we do as a child if its all made up in our heads?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users