Solipsism

[Mason Riggle]

@Someone here I don't see how it makes any difference.  

If I'm dreaming right now, but I can't tell I'm dreaming, this is exactly the same to me as 'being awake'.

Edited February 28, 2022 by Mason Riggle

[The Lucid Dreamer]

31 minutes ago, Someone here said:

There are some things we simply can't know, and can't be sure of.

And is this something that you do know and can be sure of?

[Nivsch]

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

The paradox is that Solipsism cannot be proven to be false or true. To find out what is really outside the mind you'll have to step outside of it to observe, however, the moment you do that you end up back in the mind. At first i was confused by solipsism trying to fully understand it, referring to people who hear about solipsism for the first time.

Thats why it is very easy to latch on this idea if you want it to be true.

[Mason Riggle]

@Nivsch but it literally doesn't make any difference if it's true or not. 

Whether you really exist, or if you only just seem to really exist to me.. there's no difference from my perspective, the only one I have available to me. 

[Nivsch]

@Mason Riggle but it doesnt matter to you if you are alone in the universe or not?

Doesnt it practically speaking very different?

Edited February 28, 2022 by Nivsch

[RMQualtrough]

If a person discusses solipsism without equally disregarding their "own" experience 5 seconds ago, then the position is legit moronic.

[Someone here]

@The Lucid Dreamer @Mason Riggle

if we're using "know" to refer to certainty, we're doing something that's pretty misconceived. We can't be certain about any empirical claim whatsoever, so this would suggest that scientific knowledge is impossible, for example.

But there should be something clearly problematic about that stance.

So maybe don't use "know" to denote certainty.

Certainty doesn't matter. It's a red herring to worry about it. Worry instead about good reasons for believing one option over another.

[Mason Riggle]

@Nivsch I don't seem to be alone. I seem to be talking to you. 

It only matters to me how things seem. 

If I seem to be on fire, it doesn't matter to me that I'm not.. 

[LastThursday]

1 hour ago, Mason Riggle said:

@LastThursday sure.. it's sloppy language.  'Self' and 'the experience of being a self' are not two separate things.  There isn't really 'A self' AND 'the experience that self is having'.  Dualistic language creates the illusion of separation.

Cool. So the self and experience are one and the same thing. When Solipsism says "my experience is the only one [experience]" this is a tautology, because "my", "experience" and "one experience" all mean the same thing. The only juice coming out of this definition is the word "one". What does "one" refer to here do you think?

[Mason Riggle]

@LastThursday not two. not separate. 

[LastThursday]

@Mason Riggle lol.

Ok. Not separate from what? lol again.

Anyway. I'm out of these shenanigans on this thread. Enjoy!

Edited February 28, 2022 by LastThursday

[Someone here]

The matter under discussion is not the (trivial?) matter of whether Norman exists in our 'real' world. It is about the nature of that which actually is. Therefore it is unjustified speculation, of course.

My point is that our intuition that

the world whose picture our senses show to us ≡ that which actually is

is nothing but speculation. It's as "made up" as the counter-intuitive

"everything is a figment of my imagination" (solipsism).

Both of these explanations - and many others too - are possible, and we have no way to tell which of them, if any, is correct. We cannot even say that one is more likely than another. So we cannot logically accept or dismiss any of them.

 

[The Lucid Dreamer]

54 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@The Lucid Dreamer @Mason Riggle

if we're using "know" to refer to certainty, we're doing something that's pretty misconceived. We can't be certain about any empirical claim whatsoever, so this would suggest that scientific knowledge is impossible, for example.

But there should be something clearly problematic about that stance.

So maybe don't use "know" to denote certainty.

Certainty doesn't matter. It's a red herring to worry about it. Worry instead about good reasons for believing one option over another.

I agree that “knowledge” as we typically conceptualize it, being absolute certainty of some relative thing, is not possible.  And the reason for that is because, well, it’s relative, and therefore not absolute.   How could you have absolute certainty of something that is inherently relative? 

But there are things that are not within the relative domain that you can actually validate 100% for yourself.  One of those things being that there is no self.  You can directly connect absolutely with the fact that there is no “self” here in your experience.  There is only the field of consciousness itself or “the Now” and whatever forms that are appearing therein, which themselves are intrinsically meaningless.  Other illusions that dissipate along with this realization include the illusion of free will, and the illusion of… other.  If there isn’t even a self, how can there be others?  All there is is Now, which is You, and that’s all there has ever been.  

Edited February 28, 2022 by The Lucid Dreamer

[Nivsch]

44 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Nivsch I don't seem to be alone. I seem to be talking to you. 

It only matters to me how things seem. 

If I seem to be on fire, it doesn't matter to me that I'm not.. 

Cool. So trust yourself  your answers are always have to be the #1 in importance to you.

Edited February 28, 2022 by Nivsch

[Mason Riggle]

@Nivsch I don't seem to have much choice.  

How do I know what's REAL other than by how it seems? 

[Someone here]

10 minutes ago, The Lucid Dreamer said:

I agree that “knowledge” as we typically conceptualize it, being absolute certainty of some relative thing, is not possible.  And the reason for that is because, well, it’s relative, and therefore not absolute.   How could you have absolute certainty of something that is inherently relative? 

But there are things that are not within the relative domain that you can actually validate 100% for yourself.  One of those things being that there is no self.  You can directly connect absolutely with the fact that there is no “self” here in your experience.  There is only the field of consciousness itself or “the Now” and whatever forms that are appearing therein.  Other illusions that dissipate along with this realization include the illusion of free will, and the illusion of… other.  If there isn’t even a self, how can there be others?  All there is is Now, which is You, and that’s all there has ever been.  

Even that (no self and no other )are uncertain.  Not of equal value, no, in the sense that "value" represents a subjective value judgement.  the things we know, or in this case, can't-and-don't know. These claims may not be of equal value, but their probability (of correctness) is unknown and unknowable. Thus we cannot compare any two such possibilities, meaningfully or logically.

[Mason Riggle]

@Someone here "Self" is self evident.. it's not evident that there's anything 'else'. 

[The Lucid Dreamer]

3 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Even that (no self and no other )are uncertain.  Not of equal value, no, in the sense that "value" represents a subjective value judgement.  the things we know, or in this case, can't-and-don't know. These claims may not be of equal value, but their probability (of correctness) is unknown and unknowable. Thus we cannot compare any two such possibilities, meaningfully or logically.

In terms of conceptualization, yes, they are unknowable, because these concepts aren’t even properly defined or understood to the one who believes they exist to begin with.  But awakening is not conceptual knowledge.  It is direct connection to being itself, within which there is no self or any other concept.  And it is important to understand that these ideas of “self” and “other” are just that: Ideas. Concepts.  Now your task is to figure out if these ideas are things that are actual, or merely conceptual.  My claim is that you can “know” for absolute certain that they are not actual. And I use this term “know” loosely, because that’s not really what it is.  It’s not knowledge.  It’s Being, which is prior to knowing.  

[Someone here]

16 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Someone here "Self" is self evident.. it's not evident that there's anything 'else'. 

 

7 minutes ago, The Lucid Dreamer said:

In terms of conceptualization, yes, they are unknowable, because these concepts aren’t even properly defined or understood to the one who believes they exist to begin with.  But awakening is not conceptual knowledge.  It is direct connection to being itself, within which there is no self or any other concept.  And it is important to understand that these ideas of “self” and “other” are just that: Ideas. Concepts.  Now your task is to figure out if these ideas are things that are actual, or merely conceptual.  My claim is that you can “know” for absolute certain that they are not actual. And I use this term “know” loosely, because that’s not really what it is.  It’s not knowledge.  It’s Being, which is prior to 

I think I have made my position clear.

A thing for which there is no evidence does not give any basis for examination. I'm simply not going to entertain the possible existence of fairies, for you or anyone else.

there is no basis for examination, not a formal or scientific one. Speculations of all sorts cannot be seriously considered, especially those for which there is no evidence. There can be no proofs or refutations, of course, but serious consideration are not possible. That is the justification for such matters being safely ignored. Its just impossible to answer the solipsism question with certainty. At least that's how I see it. 

[The Lucid Dreamer]

29 minutes ago, Someone here said:

 

I think I have made my position clear.

A thing for which there is no evidence does not give any basis for examination. I'm simply not going to entertain the possible existence of fairies, for you or anyone else.

there is no basis for examination, not a formal or scientific one. Speculations of all sorts cannot be seriously considered, especially those for which there is no evidence. There can be no proofs or refutations, of course, but serious consideration are not possible. That is the justification for such matters being safely ignored. Its just impossible to answer the solipsism question with certainty. At least that's how I see it. 

No basis for examination? You can examine your own being directly. Right now. Because you are it. It doesn’t get any more empirical than that. What do you think evidence even is? The very concept of evidence begs the question of the existence of “other.” It only has value if you presuppose that there are others who can corroborate your observations. But no one can observe your own being for you.  Can you see that this is a meta-scientific problem? 

But if you want to just throw up your hands and say “It can’t possibly be known, because I have no way to verify it scientifically” then that’s that.  You’ve already failed.  If you keep trying to approach this problem with your conceptual mind, you will never understand.  But it looks like you’ve already decided that no amount of inquiry could be sufficient, and so that will be your reality. 

Edited February 28, 2022 by The Lucid Dreamer