Philosophy Now Forum

you can't "thinks" someone into existence simply by talking with them

-Imp

You can't 'thinks' at all without an other existing other than oneself.

the vat masters are certain to exist?

-Imp

No idea. I'm with Kant and the Noumena in such matters but if we have 'thinks' then there is an other out there and personally I'll go with Occam and say it's another one of us.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 3:54 pm

gaffo wrote:…
do not see language as proof of solipsism as false. only that i like play games with myself and am an insane God.

Insane or not you won't be making up the language that you are using now by yourself. Of course what you could do is split into two entities and talk to yourself but then you'd just be making my point.

thanks for rely to me as a gentleman,

maybe we are "talking across understanding here" - i value discussion over invective, perchance your understanding of what Solipsism differs from mine.

welcome clarification of your understanding of that mentality/philosophy of said is.

so as we may discuss the matter.

- even if "may be" just talking to myself................lol.

thanks for reply BTW.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 3:54 pm
Of course what you could do is split into two entities and talk to yourself but then you'd just be making my point.

all men/woman (assuming they ARE - outside of me) are of many minds. Subconcience being the majority mind.

...............

but leaving "them" aside, and assuming ME is all there is - my conscience mind is a minority, my other minds - from the conscience playing wishfull thinking/denail - in general rules over my rational mind (former being my conscious mind's "stuff as it should be" - rather than "as stuff is"..................

even ruling/negating Ostiche (which is a demon i try to ignore personally) - there remains the 80-percent i have less ability to control or even know about - my subconscious! - where the true self resides and where even the self actualized at best know 1/2 of and make peace with.

2-cents.

-----------------

solipsism aside (which is the final conclusion via empirism/logic) - being a man that wishes to be not alone, but allow others to be external entities like myself )so per "faith" hope you exist (and assume so - though logic does not show this as so)...................hope you are my brother and like me have a "multiple mind".........made up of 1/4 conscious - including the ostirche part - and 3/4 sub.


thanks for reply Sir.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 10:34 pm

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 2:35 am

you just said it again

-Imp

No, I just said that if you are talking in a language then there is an other other than you, you think not?

I'm simply pointing out that the existence of the "other" other than you (with whom you believe you speak) is not guaranteed simply through your conversations with them...

-Imp

indeed. i make no such a assumption.

just as likely I'm talking to myself.

i hope not so, but my "hope" is irrelivent

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2018 1:13 am I'm not denying the "other"; I'm simply denying proof of its definite existence outside the thoughts of the speaker

-Imp

exactly

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2018 3:47 pm You can't 'thinks' at all without an other existing other than oneself.

????????????

you exist per my "mind" reading "your posts" on this forum!!!!!!!!!! (the latter two would not exist if i was a brain dead veg on a bed somewhere..............for would exist - via mind's senses - until i was clubbed on my head and lost said "mind" - you and this forum then being lost from existing as a part of my mind "killed" by the being that my mind created that clubbed me (i clubbeb my own mind? - maybe - who knows).

I'm not sure you actually understand the mentality (I still talking to myself ain't i - lol) involved with a full understanding of the concept of Solipsism. (I think you have a miss-understanding of that concept.

All men (and it can only be that there is one man - me - i take that there are other men via faith) are Islands.

"minds" - all i know and will know (and so in effect - all i know from histroy/science/etc......is via my mind - and ONLY me mind - if they exist outside me - GREAT - but "you" cannot prove...............and via pragmatism, they do not exist outside of me (whether they do or not) since what i know if them is via my mind!).

gaffo wrote: maybe we are "talking across understanding here" - i value discussion over invective, perchance your understanding of what Solipsism differs from mine.

welcome clarification of your understanding of that mentality/philosophy of said is.

so as we may discuss the matter. …

Sure, Solipsism is the idea that the only thing that one can be sure of is that your mind exists and from this you get the epistemological position that you cannot know for sure anything external exists and the metaphysical one that the external world doesn't exist. Which one are you or are you both?

- even if "may be" just talking to myself................lol.

And my point is simple, if you are talking to yourself and none of the entities that you usually think you are talking to actually exist(and that includes you I guess) you can still know that there is an other than 'yourself' as the logic of the language you are using to talk to yourself would not and could not be created by a singular entity.

gaffo wrote:???????????? ….

You appear to have forgotten that I'm using 'thinks' in a specific way here?

you exist per my "mind" reading "your posts" on this forum!!!!!!!!!! (the latter two would not exist if i was a brain dead veg on a bed somewhere..............for would exist - via mind's senses - until i was clubbed on my head and lost said "mind" - you and this forum then being lost from existing as a part of my mind "killed" by the being that my mind created that clubbed me (i clubbeb my own mind? - maybe - who knows). …

Whilst it is a kind of truth that when you die a little bit of the Universe dies with you it is not the case that the rest does.

I'm not sure you actually understand the mentality (I still talking to myself ain't i - lol) involved with a full understanding of the concept of Solipsism. (I think you have a miss-understanding of that concept. …

No I think I understand the idea pretty well.

All men (and it can only be that there is one man - me - i take that there are other men via faith) are Islands. …

Who communicate with the ships of language. But given your position I'm surprised you think you can say this at all?

"minds" - all i know and will know (and so in effect - all i know from histroy/science/etc......is via my mind - and ONLY me mind - if they exist outside me - GREAT - but "you" cannot prove...............and via pragmatism, they do not exist outside of me (whether they do or not) since what i know if them is via my mind!).

In your 'mind' you appear to be able to talk to yourself in a language and the logic of this language means that you can know that there is an other outside of yourself as if you were just yourself you'd not be able to talk to yourself in such a manner.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 6:44 pm

gaffo wrote: maybe we are "talking across understanding here" - i value discussion over invective, perchance your understanding of what Solipsism differs from mine.

welcome clarification of your understanding of that mentality/philosophy of said is.

so as we may discuss the matter. …

Sure, Solipsism is the idea that the only thing that one can be sure of is that your mind exists and from this you get the epistemological position that you cannot know for sure anything external exists and the metaphysical one that the external world doesn't exist.

Thanks for reply to my inquary - you (I?) do understand.


The former.

as for the latter - it could be either way, per my perspective it does not "exist in substance" since all information/understanding of said "material substance" (assuming material/substance exists) is flltered via my mind anyway!!!!!!!!!!

so it is irrelevant to me if external realm exists outside of my persception of.

I value understanding Logic and Empircism - which only affirms your former in the above.

for my personal sanity, via "Faith" i assume you and 7 billion others - and the solar system, earth, universe - aka "matter exists outside my mind".

I take upon faith though - no more sound that in a belief in God via the same criteria (I'm an Athiest BTW).

;-/.


But I guess not quite, "i beleive in you"! - per Faith!

lol.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 6:44 pm
Which one are you or are you both?

see above.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 6:44 pm as the logic of the language you are using to talk to yourself would not and could not be created by a singular entity.

????????????????????????

still we are a cross-understanding (no understanding) - you know what solipsism so we are argeement that much.


but fail to understand you view per language as somehow "special" - counter's solipsism somehow.


I fail to understand you point above - welcome clarification.

so i can correct you/or agree to dissagree (or so you can demolish my solipsist ways - not likely, but fk who knows........."more to this world than you philosy herr horachio(or whomever) - and somesuch..........per you know - that guy, never read him, and so don't know the proper lines to quote - but he's ok by me).

gaffo wrote:…
but fail to understand you view per language as somehow "special" - counter's solipsism somehow.

I fail to understand you point above - welcome clarification. ...

I think it's because you are not understanding the logic of the language that you are using nor that it is something 'special' in the world. It is special because it creates something that does not necessarily exist in the world, i.e. meaning. It does this because it is not about the world per se but about communicating the thoughts and perceptions we have about the world, as such it is not something that a solipsistic being could create as what point of it? When you use your inner voice to talk to yourself in a language you are doing something you can only do because there is an other out there somewhere who can speak your language as well. Now it may well be the case that me and all the others you talk with don't exist and are just figments of your imagination but you can be damn sure that there is at least one other out there as you'd not have this ability to talk to yourself in the first place and for me I prefer Occam's razor and think it simpler that the others are exactly who we think they are, i.e. other human beings but it wouldn't necessarily have to be the case but it is necessary that there is an other who isn't you for you to do what you are doing when you talk to yourself with the inner voice in a language, 'thinks' I call it.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:52 pm

gaffo wrote:…
but fail to understand you view per language as somehow "special" - counter's solipsism somehow.

I fail to understand you point above - welcome clarification. ...

I think it's because you are not understanding the logic of the language that you are using nor that it is something 'special' in the world. It is special because it creates something that does not necessarily exist in the world, i.e. meaning. It does this because it is not about the world per se but about communicating the thoughts and perceptions we have about the world, as such it is not something that a solipsistic being could create as what point of it? When you use your inner voice to talk to yourself in a language you are doing something you can only do because there is an other out there somewhere who can speak your language as well. Now it may well be the case that me and all the others you talk with don't exist and are just figments of your imagination but you can be damn sure that there is at least one other out there as you'd not have this ability to talk to yourself in the first place and for me I prefer Occam's razor and think it simpler that the others are exactly who we think they are, i.e. other human beings but it wouldn't necessarily have to be the case but it is necessary that there is an other who isn't you for you to do what you are doing when you talk to yourself with the inner voice in a language, 'thinks' I call it.

i understand your point now. i concur with it via faith.

but remain a solipsist per empiricism.

thanks for rely Sir.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 12:54 am

gaffo wrote:don't follow - being a limited God - this particular.

clueless about, but value learning/talking with myself to become a Greater God.

if willing ;-/

God or not if you are a solitary being you won't be inventing the kind of language we are using as for starters you couldn't talk to yourself in the first place.

i'm talking to myself again aren't i?

No you really aren't, in fact what you've just said implicitly implies that there are others as you'd not be knocking-up a word 'myself' if there was only you.

This is a really good point. Solipsism (at least the honest belief in it) generally seems to evaporate the minute we step outside the house or sit down and type something to be read.

On the other hand, I suppose there are still wild hypothetical scenarios or thought experiments we can concoct in our minds to validate a kind of Cartesian solipsism, regardless. For example, I might think that everyone else around me is some sort of dream I'm having (or maybe a hologram) or perhaps a mechanical (non-conscious) robot, or chatbot, programed to make me think you are the same sort of being I am. However, IIRC Sartre pointed out that feeling shame or embarrassment (among other reactions) in the presence of another dispels the myth that we can conceivably or genuinely believe in solipsism. For example, if you really feel you are the only one in the world, try having sex with a beautiful woman (consensually of course) in public with others watching. Most of us would feel shame or embarrassment, which seems to indicate that we think someone else is watching. Unless of course having sex in front of non-conscious robots bothers us.