From: nospam@example.net
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024, oldernow wrote:
> 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
Ah, but note that the explanation needs the world, and the medium for the
explanation. Instead I think the world is a more minimal and elegant
solution since it won't need factor X, which is behind the dream.
But I think we are starting to walk in circles here, so I will abandon the
argument for now. =)
>> 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! ;-)
>
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
