From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   D  writes:   
      
   > On Fri, 4 Apr 2025, Richmond wrote:   
   >   
   >> D  writes:   
   >>   
   >>> I disagree. Because it implies no certainty, no truth, and no other   
   >>> consciousness who can partake of the story, so everything, assuming   
   >>> the strictest solipsism becomes meaningless.   
   >>   
   >> According to that definition, dreams are meaningless. But I think   
   >> dreams are meaningful. They are at least meaningful to the dreamer.   
   >   
   > Why would dreams be meaningless?   
      
   Because in a dream there is "no certainty, no truth, and no other   
   consciousness who can partake of the story". So it is in that sense like   
   your definition of solipsism up there. But I am disputing it because   
   dreams are actually meaningful. And so can solipsism be meaningful.   
      
   >We have correlations between dreaming and memory formation for   
   > instance. The reason for that, is that dreams is a process in the   
   > physical world, we can track their effects on the brain and the   
   > organism. This is not the same as solipsism. I think I am   
   > misunderstand you here.   
      
   Or maybe I misunderstand you. But anyway, I don't think you can   
   understand a dream from its effects on the brain.   
      
   >   
   >>> True, but that is not what I mean. First of all, this is a   
   >>> philosophy discussion. Proof and evidence are very much at home in   
   >>> philosophy. Those are basically the only tools we have. Without any   
   >>> burden of proof or truth, discussion and philosophy by extention   
   >>> becomes meaningless (see above). So I disagree with that.   
   >>   
   >> OK you can have a burden of proof in philosophy. But generally it   
   >> rests on the person who made the positive statement. The statement   
   >> "sense evidence is a source of knowledge" is a positive statement.   
   >   
   > I think that's a gross simplification, that leads to infinite   
   > regression, which lands you into solipsism territory. If every   
   > positive statement has the burden of proof, you'll end up with   
   > something like this. The world exist, what's the proof? The senses see   
   > the world. Ok, what's the proof? Well, things don't move when I close   
   > my eyes, and other people agree wit hme. Ok, so what's the proof? You   
   > see how this position eventually lands you into trouble?   
      
   Only if you require proof of everything. But actually, making   
   assumptions is quite normal. There is no reason you can't assume that   
   sense evidence is a source of knowledge, without being able to prove   
   it. But what you have done is said that it is problematic to manage   
   without it and therefore someone else must prove it is false. How could   
   someone prove than sense evidence is not a source of knowledge? by   
   proving that no piece of knowledge was ever derived from sense evidence?   
      
   > Now!   
   >   
   > As I have stated before, although not emphasized, is that we solve   
   > this by making sure what we say is open to falsification!   
   >   
   > I already wrote how someone who denies that the world exist, since   
   > that person denies the evidence of their senses, then has to falsify   
   > the claim that the world exist.   
   >   
   > No one in 2500 years of philosophy, has been able to falsify the claim   
   > that the external world exists, nor that what we see exists.   
      
   How do you know?   
      
   >   
   > Until the falsification is made, the world does in fact exist, and the   
   > proof is the senses.   
   >   
      
   No. The truth is the truth regardless of whether anyone proves it or   
   disproves it. (Otherwise truth becomes subjective, or consensus truth).   
      
   > So if you can show me that, as per my earlier message, we live in a   
   > simulation, that there in fact is an evil demon tricking us etc. I'll   
   > happily agree! But no one has done it, so what we see, lacking proof   
   > or falsification, is the truth.   
      
   This is very odd. I can't prove it is a simulation, but you can't prove   
   it isn't. So we don't really know. But we assume it isn't, because that   
   is simpler.   
      
   But interestingly (to me anyway) is that for some things 'simulation'   
   isn't meaningful, for example, simulating mathematics or logic would be   
   the same as mathematics or logic. So if the universe is mathematical,   
   then it is like a naturally occuring simulation. This idea of abstract   
   being real is mad on the face of it, but quanta are just numbers...   
      
   >   
   >>>   
   >>> When it comes to a negative, you make a mistake in thinking about   
   >>> the situation as world or no-world. but you are forgetting that   
   >>> there are other positions.   
   >>>   
   >>> Someone who does not trust senses as sources of truth, and who   
   >>> disputes the concept of an external world, can provide proof that   
   >>> idealist is in fact the real "truth", thus disproving an external   
   >>> material world.   
   >>   
   >> I don't know what it means to say "idealist is a real truth". I think   
   >> solipsism means that only the mind is real. But that doesn't exclude   
   >> the possibility of communicating with entities within the mind. To   
   >> the subject, these entities could be as real as objectively real   
   >> entities.   
   >   
   > No, actually solipsism means you even have to doubt your mind, since   
   > you could just be a simulation in an AI, so you could not be real, and   
   > also you must doubt the existence of the tokens of your mind and the   
   > language in which you think, because that could also be caused by a   
   > demon.   
      
   I don't think that is the definition of solipsism. Solipsism is doubting   
   everything except your mind. And anyway, how could you hold a   
   philosophical position if you doubted your mind? The solipsist arrives   
   at his position through logic and reason, so he is assuming his mind is   
   functioning.   
      
   One could in principle doubt ones own mind regardless of whether it is a   
   simulation in an AI. Besides which, simulated mind is the same as mind,   
   in the same way that simulated logic is the same as logic.   
      
   >   
   > So in order to be consistent with your view, you would have to doubt   
   > the entities as illusions as well, and your language, so any   
   > communication would be ultimately meaningless, if you do in fact   
   > remain consistent.   
   >   
   > But all solipsists engaging in debate on internet forums seem to   
   > believe in some kind of rational discource, they seem to believe that   
   > they can argue their point, they sometimes seem to become frustrated   
   > etc. which proves that they in reality, actually to believe in an   
   > external reality. If not explicitly stated, than at least through   
   > their behavior.   
      
   Perhaps they think they are debating their own mind?   
      
   >   
   >>>   
   >>> The person could prove that we live in a simulation, or that what we   
   >>> encounter when we touch and see a table is in fact an illusion.   
   >>>   
   >>> There are many ways open. But for 2500 years no one has succeeded in   
   >>> disproving the default position, the position we have no choice but   
   >>> to accept and live in, which is that there exists an external,   
   >>> material world.   
   >>   
   >> Accepting it because we have no choice isn't quite the same as   
   >> accepting it as true. It is possible that the properties of the world   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)