The ontological error of Philosophy

[PeteJ]

The unfalsifiability of solipsism is dependent on the inability of sensory data to determine what exists.

Sorry you have that problem.

Thanks for the solicitous comment, but what problem? I didn't mention a problem.

[RCSaunders]

The unfalsifiability of solipsism is dependent on the inability of sensory data to determine what exists.

Sorry you have that problem.

Thanks for the solicitous comment, but what problem? I didn't mention a problem.

Well, if you don't mind not knowing what reality is, then I guess it's not a problem.

[Skepdick]

Well, if you don't mind not knowing what reality is, then I guess it's not a problem.

That's the same bullshit Russel was spewing.

Everybody minds not knowing "the true nature of reality", but apparently philosophers mind more.
It's in the same league of 'stupid' as moral one-upmanship.

Your philosophical more-minding is irrational - the limits of epistemology are what they are.

Embrace eternal subjectivity.

[RCSaunders]

Well, if you don't mind not knowing what reality is, then I guess it's not a problem.

That's the same bullshit Russel was spewing.

Everybody minds not knowing "the true nature of reality", but apparently philosophers mind more.
It's in the same league of 'stupid' as moral one-upmanship.

Your philosophical more-minding is irrational - the limits of epistemology are what they are.

Embrace eternal subjectivity.

Why do you tell other people what to do? If you like subjectivity, embrace it.

[Skepdick]

Why do you tell other people what to do? If you like subjectivity, embrace it.

I am embracing subjectivity.

What delusion are you embracing? Philosophy?

[Belinda]

Well, if you don't mind not knowing what reality is, then I guess it's not a problem.

That's the same bullshit Russel was spewing.

Everybody minds not knowing "the true nature of reality", but apparently philosophers mind more.
It's in the same league of 'stupid' as moral one-upmanship.

Your philosophical more-minding is irrational - the limits of epistemology are what they are.

Embrace eternal subjectivity.

If RCSaunders were to share a brain/mind with all others then would (S)he be a subject of his/her own experience? Or would that ( formerly RCS_) universal brain/mind remain limited to relativity? I think it would remain limited to relativity , because the location of the brain/mind may be universal but the time and duration of the brain/mind are plural and therefore the items are plural and so must be relative to each other. This is tautological.

[Skepdick]

If RCSaunders were to share a brain/mind with all others then would (S)he be a subject of his/her own experience? Or would that ( formerly RCS_) universal brain/mind remain limited to relativity? I think it would remain limited to relativity , because the location of the brain/mind may be universal but the time and duration of the brain/mind are plural and therefore the items are plural and so must be relative to each other. This is tautological.

It's difficult to untangle such hypotheticals because nobody has a clue what such an experience might be like. The challenge I foresee is that a unified brain would have access to two different histories which may or may not have crossed in the past.

This causes at least one conceptual problem: can you determine the correct order of events across two independent histories/memories?
I know that my experience 2 happened after my experience 1, but I don't know if your experience 2 happened before my experience 1, after my experience 1 or after my experience 2.

In computer science we have invented some protocols to try and establish partial order of events and detect causal conflicts, but total ordering requires multiple subjects to agree on time (atomic clocks help in practice, but not in theory).

To arrive at consensus we need a universal clock to enable synchronous communication - external to any subjective experience. We don't have one. Conceptually this a synchronisation problem and I don't know how much overlap one should interpret between synchronisation in general and Carl Jung's idea of synchronicity.

In so far as I understand "shared consensus" as a "shared experience synchronisation" problem you could say I am a Jungian.

[RCSaunders]

Why do you tell other people what to do? If you like subjectivity, embrace it.

I am embracing subjectivity.

What delusion are you embracing? Philosophy?

You're the making the claims.

[Skepdick]

You're the making the claims.

I am expressing my subjectivity.

Same thing you are doing.

[PeteJ]

Sorry you have that problem.

Thanks for the solicitous comment, but what problem? I didn't mention a problem.

Well, if you don't mind not knowing what reality is, then I guess it's not a problem.

I can't follow you here. Why do you assume I don't know, and don't mind not knowing? I didn't say anything about my knowledge of Reality. One thing I know is that Solipsism is unfalsifiable. Another thing is the reason why it is unfalsifiable. I'm not aware of any problems.

[RCSaunders]

Thanks for the solicitous comment, but what problem? I didn't mention a problem.

Well, if you don't mind not knowing what reality is, then I guess it's not a problem.

I can't follow you here. Why do you assume I don't know, and don't mind not knowing? I didn't say anything about my knowledge of Reality. One thing I know is that Solipsism is unfalsifiable. Another thing is the reason why it is unfalsifiable. I'm not aware of any problems.

I'm not aware of any problems.

Obviously!

Ignorance is bliss, as they say!

[PeteJ]

Obviously!

Ignorance is bliss, as they say!

Are you always so rude for no reason? It's not a practical way to talk to people since they'll just end end up ignoring you.

[RCSaunders]

Obviously!

Ignorance is bliss, as they say!

Are you always so rude for no reason? It's not a practical way to talk to people since they'll just end end up ignoring you.

If you are a solipsist, only you exist. If you are finding rudeness, you're creating it.

[PeteJ]

If you are a solipsist, only you exist. If you are finding rudeness, you're creating it.

As far as I'm aware nobody is a solipsist or has ever been one.

I wouls say that calling calling me ignorant was rude and reveals much about you, but perhaps I'm oversensitive.

[RCSaunders]

If you are a solipsist, only you exist. If you are finding rudeness, you're creating it.

As far as I'm aware nobody is a solipsist or has ever been one.

I would say that calling calling me ignorant was rude and reveals much about you, but perhaps I'm oversensitive.

You wrote:

The unfalsifiability of solipsism is dependent on the inability of sensory data to determine what exists.

and

One thin I know is that Solipsism is unfalsifiable. Another thing is the reason why it is unfalsifiable. I'm not aware of any problems.

If no one is a solipsist, then no one argues for solipsism, so what is the point to saying it is unfalsifiable? So at that point I just may have misunderstood you, but you also said:

The unfalsifiability of solipsism is dependent on the inability of sensory data to determine what exists.

And since there is no other data, you are saying you have no way to determine what exsits. When I expressed the fact I was sorry you had that problem (and it is problem) you dismissed it, saying:

I'm not aware of any problems.

Which means you are unaware of the problem which is obvious to me, and since you are unaware (ignorant of) it, you are unbothered by it, which is what, "Ignorance is bliss," means.

It may be rude, but it's true. Would you rather have my lie to you?