From: oldernow@dev.null   
      
   On 2024-08-05, D  wrote:   
      
   >> Surely solipsism is simpler than all this unnecessary sophistry?   
   >   
   > Not necessarily. Let's assume that solipsism is true, that   
   > means that you still would have to account for the world   
      
   Pick an explanation card, any explanation card:   
      
   - dreaming   
   - day-dreaming   
   - image-ination   
   - thoughts detailing a world plus faith that the thoughts   
     are more than just thoughts   
      
   > as it works today, with all science and everything plus   
   > what I call factor "x" which is what gives rise to your   
   > mind. So given that situation, clearly the world is the   
   > simpler way instead of the world, all there is, plus the   
   > X factor.   
      
   If you say so, Mulder.... ;-)   
      
   > In addition to that, let me give you three argument   
   > against solipsism:   
   >   
   > 1. The Argument from Intersubjectivity One of the   
   > strongest arguments against solipsism is the concept of   
   > intersubjectivity, which posits that our understanding   
   > of reality is shaped through shared experiences and   
   > interactions with others. Language and social practices   
   > are inherently public, meaning that our thoughts and   
   > expressions are rooted in a communal context. This suggests   
   > that we cannot fully claim to be the only conscious   
   > beings because our language and concepts are developed in   
   > relation to others. The very act of communicating implies   
   > an acknowledgment of other minds; if solipsism were true,   
   > meaningful communication would be impossible since there   
   > would be no shared understanding or common ground.   
   >   
   > 2. The Argument from Analogy The argument from analogy   
   > asserts that we infer the existence of other minds based on   
   > observable behaviors similar to our own. When we see others   
   > react in ways that mirror our emotional responses—such   
   > as expressing pain or joy—we naturally conclude that   
   > they have similar mental states. This inference is not   
   > merely speculative; it is grounded in consistent patterns   
   > of behavior across individuals. If solipsism were true,   
   > it would imply that these behaviors are mere illusions   
   > created by one’s mind, which contradicts the reliability   
   > and predictability we observe in social interactions.   
   >   
   > 3. The Problem of Language and Communication   
   > Solipsism struggles to account for the nature of   
   > language itself. Language is a public phenomenon; it   
   > requires a community for its development and use. If   
   > one were truly alone in their consciousness, they   
   > could not engage in meaningful discourse or develop   
   > complex linguistic structures because these depend on   
   > shared rules and understandings established through   
   > social interaction. Furthermore, the very expression of   
   > solipsistic thoughts relies on language, which presupposes   
   > an audience or interlocutor—thus undermining the   
   > solipsist’s claim that only their mind exists.   
      
   All that seems to be - including "being-ness/is-ness" -   
   is reflection of mind, including the seeming individual   
   experiencer thereof. We even say we're *conceived*, for   
   deitiessakes! ;-)   
      
   --   
   Oh, for the love of signature silliness....   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)