From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   I am doing armchair philosophy today. I have emacs on the tv screen!   
      
   D  writes:   
      
   > On Thu, 10 Apr 2025, Richmond wrote:   
   >   
   >> D  writes:   
   >>   
   >>> Solipsism, the position of doubting everything, including ones self,   
   >>> becomes meaningless, because there is no truth, so there is no ground   
   >>> for any discussion.   
   >>   
   >> That isn't the definition of solipsism.   
   >>   
   >> 2.  PHILOSOPHY the view or theory that the self is all that can be known   
   >> to exist.  "solipsism is an idealist thesis because ‘Only my mind   
   >> exists’ entails ‘Only minds exist’"   
   >   
   > Yes, but that is an error, since if you doubt all but the mind, the   
   > mind has to go too. I've already explained my reasoning, and I   
   > disagree with the definition you have.   
      
   That definition is the generally accepted one in philosophy and has been   
   around for a long time. So if you think it is necessary to redefine it,   
   then it is possible you are in error, not the definition. Your reasoning   
   is actually begging the question, as you are starting with the idea that   
   there is everything, and then mind(s) are objects within that, which is   
   actually your conclusion, so you can't start with it. The solipsist   
   believes that his mind *is* everything, including all that he sees and   
   hears. It is quite a mad position, as one has to believe that one has   
   imagined the entire history of the world and all the evidenced of it,   
   including pictures of grandma when she was young, dinosaur fossils   
   etc. A much simpler and more plausible explanation is that there is   
   indeed a world outside the mind. But proving it either way seems   
   impossible to me.   
      
   > Why is it a misuse of the word know?   
      
   Because if you think you might be found wrong, then you don't know, you   
   are merely confident, but entertaining a little doubt.   
      
   > I don't get it. I have never seen anyone sing anything into   
   > existence. Can you point me to some paper or experiment?   
      
   I was being metaphorical there. It's not science, it is some kind of   
   spiritual/religious thing. But it is a similar idea to the quantum   
   theory, in which properties are in relations. I can't remember what   
   that's called and I have sent the book back to the library.   
      
   I don't really get the stuff about the matrix and devils, or why you   
   keep bringing them up.   
      
   In eastern religion, the material world is regarded as an illusion, and   
   also 'mind' with a small M (which we would call ego). The only true   
   reality is Mind with a capital M, which in western religion would be   
   called God, or the kingdom of heaven, or what Jung would call the   
   universal unconscious, i.e. that part of human unconscious which we   
   inherit from our ancestors and is therefore common to us all. I think   
   that might be the position of him who denies all, called the writer. But   
   I shan't ask.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)