On Solipsists

a reply to: Aphorism

I am asserting solipsists debase and slander the senses,

And by extension that means they are wrong.......
Thus my question that you continue to try to avoid.

This is tiresome, friend. The devil would hire better advocates.

Or you should be able to prove your point.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

You first claimed it wasn't.
This isn't MtG with the rule last in first out.

a reply to: Aphorism

Exactly.
So, answer the initial question.

Or are we done here?

originally posted by: Aphorism

4.

In what sense are we one? No sense at all, because sense tells us the opposite.

How are we all one? Because, all humans are a part of the group called "humanity", even if they are a hermit they still have a human heart.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

You have yet to ask a single question. Ask away.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

The solipsist believes himself to be a mind, and not a body in the world. If he truly believes this, then he should have no fear inflicting harm on himself or others.

Unfortunately, your man is an embodiment of a solipsist. A man who says we are perceiving nothing but "perception" but still shaves and wears decent clothes. Why would he shave and clean himself up if he didn't think he himself was being seen? Saying we perceive nothing but perception is like saying we cook nothing but cooking. It is meaningless sophistry.

a reply to: Aphorism

Actually, I have.
Which is why you continue to dodge.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

The first question you asked was this: "Oh, so you didn't say this?"

I've already answered that question many times now.

You are simply dodging trying to make a point.

a reply to: Aphorism

Um.
No you haven't.
You have not even attempt to cover what I questioned/challenged you with.
Just tried to skirt around it, continually, like now.
Funny that you are now saying you did actually answer.
After telling me you didn't even see one.
Simple fact is, you have bare assertion.
You cannot prove that reality is not illusion anymore than a solipist can prove that it is.
Thus your words that "solipists" debase and demean the senses is unsubstantiated.

Oh and the subject of our senses providing illusion.

Dr. Brown @ Duke University I believe has a pretty good handle on this topic:

This (solipsism) is the worst of all possible Bull# philosophy.Why Solipsism is Bull#

Oh yeah, it is total bull# but you have to appreciate the utter *#^&$*&% of it all. And as case evidence, here is the video of Chelsea, explaining the meaning of miles per hour.

Okay yes this is hilarious but do note the underlying salient point here. This woman is convinced – convinced – that she is right. Key phrases such as “you don’t make sense, I make sense,” and “you don’t know the answer! You’re guesstimating like I’m guesstimating,” shows that Chelsea from the video had no doubt in her mind that she was correct; this is not something that you get from mere egocentrism or narcissism. No, this sense of unconditional trust to one’s own mind in the face of overwhelming evidence is akin to religious fanatical blind faith and that is exactly what Solipsism is.

www.goingyourownway.com...

Concerning Michio Kaku...

He is what one might call a "next level solipsist".

On July 19 Kaku really lost his "cool" when he tried to intellectually bully RT Interviewer Oksana Boyco. Kaku becomes quite rude and belligerent with the host at this point. He asks, “Are you a 'conspiracy theorist'?”. And he demands that she answer his question, “Who was behind 9/11?” He repeats it five times in rapid succession! You can hear him interrupt her every time she tries to answer. He is clearly trying to use the full weight of his celebrity “Science Guy” status to intimidate the young and articulate Russian journalist, Oksana Boyco.

A question to Dr. Michio Kaku

See also Dr Kaku's interview on RT three days later where he really reveals his position on 9/11 in a heated exchange with Oksana Boyko. Kaku is quite combative in this interview with Oksana.

At 9:25 Kaku becomes quite rude and belligerent with the host at this point. He asks, “Are you a 'conspiracy theorist'?”. And he demands that she answer his question, “Who was behind 9/11?” He repeats it five times in rapid succession! You can hear him interrupt her everytime she tries to answer. He is clearly trying to use the full weight of his celebrity “Science Guy” status to intimidate the young journalist Oksana.

Michio Kaku Gave Michael Shermer An Unskeptical Interview

Back and forth. Back and forth. This is why philosophy bothers me. It's why I don't really have one. I like philosophy because it's a journey to understand what we're and what's around us, what came before and what comes after. I just don't like the infighting and arguments people have. It's inevitable to happen once someone latches on to certain things. For example, I was interested in existentialism, so I got a book. But the moment I started reading, I realized the guy who wrote it already was set on things and that made it a lot less interesting to read. Felt like I was reading the bible, except one person wrote it and he/she was on a mission to convert me.

A lot of philosophies are interesting to me. I've heard of solipsism before. I consider it possible, but just as likely as anything else. And there're so many philosophies out there, I just can't really think there's ONE right answer. How many philosophies were there in the past millions of years? How many more will there be in hte next millions of years? I think we're egotistical to value ourselves capable of masterminding the meaning of the universe and getting it perfectly right. And so the answer to everything is probably a assemblage of all our philosophies and all of hte philospphies ever created by us or anyone else and all that will be created hereafter.

My opinion is solipsism only makes us think less of others if we believe our actions don't matter. How do we know they don't matter even if only our mind exists? If our mind is able to create this universe we exist in then there must be a lot we don't know. Perhaps our own mind is judging our actions and when we die any wrong we did will be accounted for? Really, I must say there're a lot of things I don't know about myself, and that's not even beginning to touch on the possibility the whole universe is me.

I also believe how we treat the least of things reflects on ourselves. If we treat things around us badly it'll come around to hurt us eventually. So the goal is to minimize harm. The better someone does that within reason then the more I respect them. I don't always make the right choices and have failed on a colossal level, but I still believe these things matter. Failure doesn't make a person stop believing in the value of success, but it can make them feel unable. Wrongdoing doesn't mean a person stops feeling guilt or shame. Doing right feels sublime. Failings or wrongdoings are the things to avoid. Doing the right thing and helping others is still king.

Confession: I see myself in bugs. In plants. In everything. It's not really solipsism at all. It's more like I sense an attachment or a similarity to everything. I see how other lifeforms struggle and fight and die. They go through some of the things we go through. And in that I find a bond. I realize it can't be perfect and if you try to treat bugs as humans the ground is probably going to fall out from under you. I wish that weren't true, but do bugs really care what we think about them? I doubt it, I've seen too many of them mindlessly wander where they shouldn't go. And what of viruses or pathogens? Do they care? I doubt they stop to talk to us when they take us as hosts and potentially kill us in the process of trying to survive. Evenso, I think being able to see some of ourselves in everything around us is a way to better see ourselves and also to work more cooperatively with nature.

a reply to: Murgatroid

For being act like a A-hole?
Um......
Rrrrrriiiggghhhhttttt....
Are you sure you know what Solipsism is?

Dr Kaku wasn't the only one commenting either, just by the by.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Thus your words that "solipists" debase and demean the senses is unsubstantiated.

Perhaps you do not know what "debase" and "demean" mean.

Read Descartes' "Meditations" and tell me he does not debase and demean the senses with his Cartesian doubt.

Research Buddha's "Ayatana" and tell me it does not debase and demean the senses.

Read Plato's allegory of the cave and tell me he is not debasing and demeaning the senses.

What do the Yoga sutras say about the senses?

What does the Bible say about the gratification of the senses? I would imagine it is something demeaning and debasing.

Your claim is without any merit and dishonest.

I was not once trying to prove whether reality is an illusion or not. I said in the first aphorism that it doesn't matter what anyone says about reality. Your "question" is a poor one.

a reply to: jonnywhite

I couldn't agree more.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: CirqueDeTruth

But why is it (solipsism) sad, and such a tragedy, if it was the default mode? Not that I think that it is, rather, I think our modes of consciousness are as varied as the stars. I can't keep track of the 'isms' for there are so many to contemplate! However, lets pretend for a moment, that the majority of humanity does feel they are 'God' in their self-centric bubble universes. How does this internal rationalizing of the external - detract from the value of their life or another?

Solipsism doesn’t detract from any intrinsic value found in things, but it detracts from the evaluation process itself. By this I mean the ability to differentiate between objects, and to evaluate objects based on their own individual merit, rather than by what class or category we put them in, is stifled under the weight of assumptions and biases. We cannot learn anything from an object, nor evaluate it, when we’ve already assumed a value before we’ve even had a chance to behold it.

Take for instance a homeless man begging on the street. In our individual self-centric bubble universe (I like that phrase), he is simply a homeless man, as that is how he appears in our universe, and thus, how the solipsist evaluates him. Perhaps we are annoyed he is in our way. However, his name is John, he has two children he misses dearly, and he suffers from a variety of mental conditions. Every day he wages a noble battle just to endure, and not once has he given up. Unless we realize the “otherness” of other people (for lack of a better term), we could never consider John’s individual merit.

By default setting, I mean that there is no experience that we are not the exact center of. The way out of this, and to appreciate the “otherness” of others, is to understand we are not the center of anything, since there is no radius between us and some outer circumference or boundary. There is no bubble.

Excellent!

I have nothing to add, but wanted to acknowledge and amplify your point here.