218 replies to this topic

[nearlyNonexistent]

I don't see how language disproves solipism.

[TeamSteeve]

So the topic is doing fine as someone asked...

BTW, you need to consider the matter of the cells that make your braing are designed to communicate at all cost with each other. The brain evolved around that communication. that need for information. Behind it the brain grows. other neurons connect and process the information to sustain the cellular system. From that it needs a communication system. a language develops. the brain needs the language for the cells to sustain the longest life possible. You loose that you become a zombi... looking for brain to eat.

It seems like you're having problems with both language and your brain from the way that was written.
I do get what you mean though.

I don't think anything could absolutely disprove what solipsists believe, but then you couldn't prove anything at all to a solipsist, based on what they believe. It makes it seem kind of pointless to discuss whether anything is real or not.

[icuurd12b42]

So the topic is doing fine as someone asked...

BTW, you need to consider the matter of the cells that make your braing are designed to communicate at all cost with each other. The brain evolved around that communication. that need for information. Behind it the brain grows. other neurons connect and process the information to sustain the cellular system. From that it needs a communication system. a language develops. the brain needs the language for the cells to sustain the longest life possible. You loose that you become a zombi... looking for brain to eat.

It seems like you're having problems with both language and your brain from the way that was written. :tongue:
I do get what you mean though.

So the words I used were right then yes?

I did have a little wine...

I don't think anything could absolutely disprove what solipsists believe, but then you couldn't prove anything at all to a solipsist, based on what they believe. It makes it seem kind of pointless to discuss whether anything is real or not.

solipsism: The view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

A simple theory that cannot be proven or dis proven. Yep I see your point

[masterofhisowndomain]

I don't see how language disproves solipism.

The nature of language is that it develops and achieves meaning through a community of people who uphold and create rules that govern it. Without a community of people (i.e., the proposition made by solipsism -- that only the self exists), the solipsist would neither be able to, nor have the desire/necessity to, develop a language. Meaning therefore that anything that comes into his head will be as correct as anything else; since this is demonstrably not the case, solipsism is a fallacy.

Does that help?

[chance]

Without a community of people (i.e., the proposition made by solipsism -- that only the self exists), the solipsist would neither be able to, nor have the desire/necessity to, develop a language. Meaning therefore that anything that comes into his head will be as correct as anything else; since this is demonstrably not the case, solipsism is a fallacy.

That seems reasonable to non-solipsists (and to me). But true solipsists would dismiss that the same way they dismiss similar problems with knowledge and history.

A true solipsist must believe that all of mankind's recorded history in every country, and every culture, is just a mental construct of their own minds. Similarly, they must believe that all of mathematics, physics, and every other science is an invention of their minds. They must believe that when they learn anything new, they're just remembering something they already knew.

Anybody who believes that, could also believe they invented all the world's languages.

[Docopoper]

I would like to clarify that I'm not saying that I am definitely the only thing to exist. I am saying that I am the only thing that I can be 100% sure exists. Language may be a construct of my mind that allows me to communicate with the rest of my mind, but I am not refuting that there may be outside sources that have an effect on my mind. All I view is in my mind, that's not saying that all that is is in my mind. However how you define existence becomes very fuzzy when dealing with Plato's Cave.

[Lapps]

I think about this sometimes too.
Dunno what god has to do with it.

I was trying to explain to my mum how colours aren't real, only perceived through light to the eyes. Things don't really have a 'colour'.

[PoniesForPeace]

Without a community of people (i.e., the proposition made by solipsism -- that only the self exists), the solipsist would neither be able to, nor have the desire/necessity to, develop a language. Meaning therefore that anything that comes into his head will be as correct as anything else; since this is demonstrably not the case, solipsism is a fallacy.

That seems reasonable to non-solipsists (and to me). But true solipsists would dismiss that the same way they dismiss similar problems with knowledge and history.

A true solipsist must believe that all of mankind's recorded history in every country, and every culture, is just a mental construct of their own minds. Similarly, they must believe that all of mathematics, physics, and every other science is an invention of their minds. They must believe that when they learn anything new, they're just remembering something they already knew.

Anybody who believes that, could also believe they invented all the world's languages.

I dunno, some solipists, believe in atoms and stuff, and that other people exist, just aren't sentient. Other people believe they are in a matrix world. Not that I am one of these people.

But if they invented the language, it is still a language.

Edited by PoniesForPeace, 03 September 2012 - 01:01 PM.

[masterofhisowndomain]

Dunno what god has to do with it.

Some people choose to credit all of existence to an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being who they call "God". In the case of solipsism, where only one's own mind can be certain to exist and therefore all of reality is a product of your mind, you are effectively God.

[roytheshort]

Why would you want to be god? Insurance policies have a specific field for blaming you (Act Of God.)! If you really want to show the world that you're god, you're going have to pay a damned lot out to various houses you've destroyed and people you've killed.

[speedchuck]

I am god? Oooh! How do I teleport?

[Exkakx]

This is really cool. I want to be a solipsist now.

[ziggler1]

I think the more interesting idea is if I happen to be non-sentient and exist only as the solipsist perceives me.

If that is the case, thanks a bunch! You perceive me with a pretty decent life.

[roytheshort]

Hey Solipsist. Money doesn't exist. I don't exist. Can I have all your money?

[fawful]

"the 'seen' has no independent existence apart from the seer. In fact the entire Srishti (creation) is created from, is sustained by and goes back into - the seer."

It should be noted that this millenial world view has actually been proven by quantum physics...

Really? That sets off my alarm bells but I don't know enough to actually say anything about it other than it may be a misrepresentation of how the observation of subatomic thingies is carried out. For instance there are cases when the act of observing something changes it's state due to how it's carried out.

[NakedPaulToast]

Far be it from me to comment one way or the other on whether Nocturne really is God.

But this morning, while sitting down to a hearty breakfast, I was about to bite into a piece of toast. And my eyes are drawn to an image baked into my toast. I admit that this one piece of evidence isn't enough to validate his claim that he is God, but I can attest that the toast loaded with bran, oat, wheat and other high fiber ingredients was enough to stir a real movement within me.

[Yourself]

"the 'seen' has no independent existence apart from the seer. In fact the entire Srishti (creation) is created from, is sustained by and goes back into - the seer."

It should be noted that this millenial world view has actually been proven by quantum physics...

Really? That sets off my alarm bells but I don't know enough to actually say anything about it other than it may be a misrepresentation of how the observation of subatomic thingies is carried out. For instance there are cases when the act of observing something changes it's state due to how it's carried out.

Unfortunately a lot of people misrepresent the results from quantum physics to mean that observers have some kind of power over the universe.

They do not and quantum physics doesn't "prove" that they do.

The problem arises because people are used to thinking of observation as a passive act that doesn't involve manipulating the system they're observing. Sort of like watching a video of something. The thing is, at the quantum level, observation is no longer passive. You must interact with a system in order to make observations about it. Detectors for quantum states are not passive devices, they don't sit by and watch, they physically interact with the system, which is what produces the changes when observations are made.

There's other reasons quantum physics is weird, but none of it admits some kind of weird psychic connection to the underlying physics of reality.

[Nocturne]

Nothing there in what you say is misrepresented in the hindu quote I used.

"the 'seen' has no independent existence apart from the seer. In fact the entire Srishti (creation) is created from, is sustained by and goes back into - the seer."

<snip>The thing is, at the quantum level, observation is no longer passive. You must interact with a system in order to make observations about it. Detectors for quantum states are not passive devices, they don't sit by and watch, they physically interact with the system, which is what produces the changes when observations are made.

That seems to be exactly the same, don't you agree? It is the quantum zeno effect we are talking about here and it most definitely has been proved by science... http://en.wikipedia....tum_Zeno_effect

[icuurd12b42]

"the 'seen' has no independent existence apart from the seer. In fact the entire Srishti (creation) is created from, is sustained by and goes back into - the seer."

It should be noted that this millenial world view has actually been proven by quantum physics...

Really? That sets off my alarm bells but I don't know enough to actually say anything about it other than it may be a misrepresentation of how the observation of subatomic thingies is carried out. For instance there are cases when the act of observing something changes it's state due to how it's carried out.

Unfortunately a lot of people misrepresent the results from quantum physics to mean that observers have some kind of power over the universe.

They do not and quantum physics doesn't "prove" that they do.

The problem arises because people are used to thinking of observation as a passive act that doesn't involve manipulating the system they're observing. Sort of like watching a video of something. The thing is, at the quantum level, observation is no longer passive. You must interact with a system in order to make observations about it. Detectors for quantum states are not passive devices, they don't sit by and watch, they physically interact with the system, which is what produces the changes when observations are made.

There's other reasons quantum physics is weird, but none of it admits some kind of weird psychic connection to the underlying physics of reality.

Right. so I don't know what you are trying to convey here.

>>The thing is, at the quantum level, observation is no longer passive
At any level observation is never passive. At the smaller scale, the effect of observation is more likely to skew the observation of what is meant to be measured. On a larger scale the effect can be ignored.

>>There's other reasons quantum physics is weird, but none of it admits some kind of weird psychic connection to the underlying physics of reality.

Minute quasi-unquantifiable changes in the observed environment are likely to have quasi-unmeasurable physical effect on reality. we don't need to go down the psychic tangent. The connection is physical and most of the time unobservable but you can logically conclude there is a connection however minute it is.

The simple act of opening your eyes changes the environment enough to affect it in a way you would not notice, scattering photons in a direction they would not be otherwise travel when your eyes would be closed... but this camera here would likely be able to see it.

http://blog.ted.com/2012/06/28/photographing-the-speed-of-light-ramesh-raskar-at-tedglobal-2012/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_9vd4HWlVA

as photons hit matter and bounce around, they do affect matter slightly. Photons detected by your eye would bounce back out, maybe back to the object of interest and alter it in some way and maybe bounce back again to the eye... a feedback loop. The observed object true state never to be observed passively. The altering effect of the observation never truly determined/observed on a large scale. Changing the state of an atom or an element constituent of it in the grand scheme of things has no measurable effect on the rock you are looking at. But if you want to look at one atom of that rock the measurement would be skewed enough to not be the true state for that atom. This is reflected by the modern view on how an electron behaves in an atom. As probability around the nucleus but with no tangible position or size. There is probably no way to subdivide elements into firmly definable sub elements like there is no way to list all possible numbers between 0 and 1.

Here is the conundrum though. If nothing can be truly measured to be true, then we all live in a pack of lies (LOL)