Solipsism Refuted Absolutely, or: A World Exists Outside Your Mind!

[Selene]

A classmate of mine threw a knife at the head of a professor who told us that we couldn't prove we existed. It stuck in the wall next to his ear. Lesson learned, class was dismissed.

Ted:

When it was 5 AM at the anarchist conferences we held in the late 60's at Hunter or Columbia, I would make a fist and tell the defender of that point of view that it was a warm spring breeze and cock my fist and begin forward...

lesson learned.

You have to love reality. It is so clear at teaching.

Adam

Post Script: What kind of knife...that was an excellent throw!

[kiaer.ts]

A classmate of mine threw a knife at the head of a professor who told us that we couldn't prove we existed. It stuck in the wall next to his ear. Lesson learned, class was dismissed.

Ted:

When it was 5 AM at the anarchist conferences we held in the late 60's at Hunter or Columbia, I would make a fist and tell the defender of that point of view that it was a warm spring breeze and cock my fist and begin forward...

lesson learned.

You have to love reality. It is so clear at teaching.

Adam

Post Script: What kind of knife...that was an excellent throw!

You should have heard the "spung!" I think it was an Exacto knife. He took a cap off it before he threw it. It landed less than a foot from the professor's right ear, and stuck out perpendicular from the wall. The guy was a-philosophical, but very much a Francisco type. I haven't been able to find him on line, but he had a common name and came from a big city.

[Selene]

A classmate of mine threw a knife at the head of a professor who told us that we couldn't prove we existed. It stuck in the wall next to his ear. Lesson learned, class was dismissed.

Ted:

When it was 5 AM at the anarchist conferences we held in the late 60's at Hunter or Columbia, I would make a fist and tell the defender of that point of view that it was a warm spring breeze and cock my fist and begin forward...

lesson learned.

You have to love reality. It is so clear at teaching.

Adam

Post Script: What kind of knife...that was an excellent throw!

You should have heard the "spung!" I think it was an Exacto knife. He took a cap off it before he threw it. It landed less than a foot from the professor's right ear, and stuck out perpendicular from the wall. The guy was a-philosophical, but very much a Francisco type. I haven't been able to find him on line, but he had a common name and came from a big city.

Ted:

When I was fourteen (14), my two (2) cousins and I went to see The Magnificent Seven in the Jamaica RKO Valencia

http://www.cinematour.com/tour/us/9940.html <<<< some beautiful shots of the inside of this classic movie theater

Part of the facade, and /or the vertical sign, of Loews' Valencia, on Jamaica Avenue, is visible at the left side of the following images :

http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?3021 <<<< the decay after decades of liberal democratic city government and federal urban renewal

At any rate, you can imagine how the heroism in that movie affected three Randian teenagers who were extremely independent. We sent away for Malayan throwing daggers and practiced until we were proficient at throwing them in the proper way Charles Coburn threw in the movie!

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

A classmate of mine threw a knife at the head of a professor who told us that we couldn't prove we existed. It stuck in the wall next to his ear. Lesson learned, class was dismissed.

Ted:

When it was 5 AM at the anarchist conferences we held in the late 60's at Hunter or Columbia, I would make a fist and tell the defender of that point of view that it was a warm spring breeze and cock my fist and begin forward...

lesson learned.

You have to love reality. It is so clear at teaching.

Adam

Post Script: What kind of knife...that was an excellent throw!

You should have heard the "spung!" I think it was an Exacto knife. He took a cap off it before he threw it. It landed less than a foot from the professor's right ear, and stuck out perpendicular from the wall. The guy was a-philosophical, but very much a Francisco type. I haven't been able to find him on line, but he had a common name and came from a big city.

Ted:

When I was fourteen (14), my two (2) cousins and I went to see The Magnificent Seven in the Jamaica RKO Valencia

http://www.cinematou...ur/us/9940.html <<<< some beautiful shots of the inside of this classic movie theater

Part of the facade, and /or the vertical sign, of Loews' Valencia, on Jamaica Avenue, is visible at the left side of the following images :

http://www.nycsubway.../perl/show?3021 <<<< the decay after decades of liberal democratic city government and federal urban renewal

At any rate, you can imagine how the heroism in that movie affected three Randian teenagers who were extremely independent. We sent away for Malayan throwing daggers and practiced until we were proficient at throwing them in the proper way Charles Coburn threw in the movie!

Adam

My friend, J., was a minimalist. He had a futon, a drafting board, and a white sheet. He only slept with professional women over 30. He was 6'4, 175lbs, and his goblinish boxer's face made Ernest Borgnine look cute. He would borrow my car to make mid night runs into the time's square district pre-Giuliani. He was fond of his limited edition illustrated Dante's Inferno. When the University defunded the school paper, of which he was editor, he sought private advertisers, and ended the year with a huge profit. His room had a nice wooden floor, which, by the end of the three years we lived together, was full of knife holes.

[Robert_Bumbalough]

A classmate of mine threw a knife at the head of a professor who told us that we couldn't prove we existed. It stuck in the wall next to his ear. Lesson learned, class was dismissed.

Hello Mr Keer: Yes that is an interesting story. It reminds me of my recent encounter with a home invading burglar. At 3:10 am my Chihuahua, Taco, woke me up out of a sound sleep. I thought he wanted out for a pee. In the kitchen I heard something moving about in the back mud room. I opened the door and saw an intruder. He spoke something I did not understand and stepped towards me. I slammed and locked the door and held it closed for a few seconds. Then I ran for my shotgun. I got it out of my closet and fumbled in the dark to load it. I dropped one of the shells. It seemed to me that it took at least a minute for the shell to fall to the floor, then I got another into the chamber and snapped the gun closed. (Its a single shot New England Arms 12 gauge.) I ran back to the kitchen and called out,"I have a shot gun." Then I heard foot steps going away and out of my mud room. The perceived danger made my heart beat fast, and I did not sleep for several hours. These sorts of events that make us feel more alive for some reason testify to the efficacy of our senses in detecting the real. I think that's what Hume was getting at in his discussion in Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding.

Ok, so human senses operate on a 200 millisecond delay so I've been informed from somebody along the way. If reality does exist, as I think it does, but is incoherent and subject to near instantaneous bizarre happenings, as I usually dispute, then we can't be sure existence will be here from second to second. But as Tod Angst pointed out at Link to Tod Angst's essay, Hume mentioned that its our habit to assume induction works and will continue to work.

Hume's answer was that we had little choice but to assume that the future will be like the past..... in other words, it was a habit born of necessity - we'd starve without it! And, given that there was nothing contradictory, logically impossible or irrational to holding to the assumption, this utility of induction was seen to support the assumption on a pragmatic basis. This is a key point lost upon many people: there is nothing illogical or irrational about assuming that induction works, nor are there any rational grounds for holding that 'induction is untrustworthy'. The fact that I cannot be absolutely certain that the sun will rise tomorrow does

not give me any justification in holding that it will not rise tomorrow! This error is called the fallacy of arguing from inductive uncertainty. Tod Angst's essay

So its not irrational or illogical to use induction even if it might be possible the worst could happen in the blink of an eye. But like Hume I want to know how I can philosophically justify with absolute certainty that I will continue to exist 5 minutes from now. Sadly, Tod Angst's offered compromise of polling Bayesian probabilities that converge to unity when their summation limit approaches infinity seems cumbersome at best. While O-ism's epistemological foundationalism also seems insufficient to me. That's the rub. U of N is a necessary condition and without foundationalism of some sort is not a sufficient condition some will argue even in the face of something pointy. Although, their argument could not be taken seriously because crazy people should be treated or left alone but not taken seriously. Is the habit of assuming Uniformity of Nature sufficient for practical utilitarian purposes good enough to be called knowledge without going down the Bayesian probability road? Well Yes. It is. Its even better if we can qualify it with a solid probability of correctness. So The original argument about solipsism's falsity implying reality does have merit despite DragonFly's error-fallacy of arguing from inductive uncertainty.

Thanks for reading and I hope you make lots of money. America needs more capitalists. There are too many collectivists running about smearing working to get rich. I'll check back on this thread tomorrow. Good night.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Robert Bumbalough

[kiaer.ts]

What value, Robert, would a philosophical proof that existence will exist five minutes from now have?

"Ah, but I have a proof!" said the Wicked Witch, as greenly she dissolved, wet . . .

The purpose of philosophy is not to validate life.

But, to assure us we need not

waste our time on

nonsense.

[Robert_Bumbalough]

What value, Robert, would a philosophical proof that existence will exist five minutes from now have?

"Ah, but I have a proof!" said the Wicked Witch, as greenly she dissolved, wet . . .

The purpose of philosophy is not to validate life.

But, to assure us we need not

waste our time on

nonsense.

Hello Mr. Keer; Indeed, what an excellent concise summation of a pragmatic utilitarian view of philosophy. I have made similar comments in discussions with epistemic constructionists of various sorts and do agree with you. However, the purpose of message boards such as this one is to provide a place to discuss ideas just for the fun of it. There is no pretense at trying to convince others to adopt any ideas or to change their thinking in any way attendant to my postings. I would be taking too great liberties to assume anyone would be swayed by my prattling. But, thank you for reminding me that the purpose of philosophy is to live better and not to provide arrogant, indolent, slovenly grad students a secure berth where to feed at the trough in a public University's Philosophy department.

In answer to your question, I think the value of a proof existence will still exist 5 minutes from now is like that of a general philosophical justification of induction that is parsimonious and broad of scope. Such proofs can be used to refute solipsism and various primacy of consciousness metaphysical errors. I hope I am warranted in thinking you and the readers are familiar with how frustrating it is to argue with leftists who hold constructionist theories of truth valid. In order to persuade people who think truth is a social construction because either the world is a dream in the mind of a supreme being or that reality is incoherent, that limited constitutional government and laissez faire capitalism are in their interests, they must first be convinced their premises are false and further that Objectivism's are correct.

Best Wishes and Regards for Your Continued Success

Robert

Edited October 12, 2010 by Robert Bumbalough

[Robert_Bumbalough]

Repsectfully request well versed Objectivist philosophers comment on

epistemological foundherentism is a theory of justification

with respect to how Objectivism's doctrines would relate, compare, and contrast to Haack's (No, its not a joke, her name is Susan Haack.) work in joining foundationalism with coherentism induction justification theory?

This is pertinent to the question of refuting Solipsism because it is a way to justify induction.

Many Thanks and Best Wishes for You Making Lots of Money. (American needs more capitalists.)

Edited October 12, 2010 by Robert Bumbalough

[Brant Gaede]

Many Thanks and Best Wishes for You Making Lots of Money. (American needs more capitalists.)

Maybe George will comment.

Yes, America does need more capitalists, but the capitalists need more freedom, especially from various taxes and regulations. If I had a big wad of capital I'd not invest much here now, maybe a little abroad, but mostly I'd sock it away in capital preservation, non-touchable and non-taxable, assets.

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

What value, Robert, would a philosophical proof that existence will exist five minutes from now have?

"Ah, but I have a proof!" said the Wicked Witch, as greenly she dissolved, wet . . .

The purpose of philosophy is not to validate life.

But, to assure us we need not

waste our time on

nonsense.

But, thank you for reminding me that the purpose of philosophy is to live better and not to provide arrogant, indolent, slovenly grad students a secure berth where to feed at the trough in a public University's Philosophy department.

Yes.

Call me Ted.

[Robert_Bumbalough]

Many Thanks and Best Wishes for You Making Lots of Money. (American needs more capitalists.)

Maybe George will comment.

Yes, America does need more capitalists, but the capitalists need more freedom, especially from various taxes and regulations. If I had a big wad of capital I'd not invest much here now, maybe a little abroad, but mostly I'd sock it away in capital preservation, non-touchable and non-taxable, assets.

--Brant

Hello Brant: Yes that's a good idea and one I myself am using to help guide my financial stance. Thanks for your comment. Best Regards for Continued Success.

[Xray]

Solipsism is the view that only I exist, i.e. only my consciousness and the contents of my consciousness exist.

I would tackle solipsists by using their own premise against them and ask: "If you claim to know that there is no world around you, then how can you be certain that you exist (or that your consciousness exists), is no illusion either?"

Lawyer: What color was the get away car?

Color blind witness: Green

Lawyer: Is that the truth?

Color blind witness: Yes

Excellent example.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Xray

[Robert_Bumbalough]

A classmate of mine threw a knife at the head of a professor who told us that we couldn't prove we existed. It stuck in the wall next to his ear. Lesson learned, class was dismissed.

Hello Ted and friends here at OL. I'm not sure if posting a link to my blog is allowed, but I typed out my thoughts on the fear or strong emotion rebuttal to the fallacy of arguing from inductive uncertainty and posted on my blog.

If this violates the rules, will the moderator please flag this post. I will amend it next time I log in.

Best Wishes for Big Profits.

[kiaer.ts]

A classmate of mine threw a knife at the head of a professor who told us that we couldn't prove we existed. It stuck in the wall next to his ear. Lesson learned, class was dismissed.

Hello Ted and friends here at OL. I'm not sure if posting a link to my blog is allowed, but I typed out my thoughts on the fear or strong emotion rebuttal to the fallacy of arguing from inductive uncertainty and posted on my blog.

If this violates the rules, will the moderator please flag this post. I will amend it next time I log in.

Best Wishes for Big Profits.

You are invited, Robert, to check out my website, Radicals for Happiness. It has a neat map that shows you the locations of people who visit the site!

[sbeaulieu]

I'm curious how a solipsist would answer this.

How does one explain that which they do not know? For instance, if I'm introduced to quantum physics (which, personally, I have zero working knowledge of), how can I possibly "realize" equations. I know zero about the inner workings of a nuclear powerplant. I know zero about many subjects which have definitions that I've yet to look up. How does this work into the "reality" of a solipsist's world?

~ Shane

[kiaer.ts]

I'm curious how a solipsist would answer this.

How does one explain that which they do not know? For instance, if I'm introduced to quantum physics (which, personally, I have zero working knowledge of), how can I possibly "realize" equations. I know zero about the inner workings of a nuclear powerplant. I know zero about many subjects which have definitions that I've yet to look up. How does this work into the "reality" of a solipsist's world?

~ Shane

I am God. I got bored. I made myself into this creature. When I die, I will wake up and remember.

[skrzprst]

OP's argument is presuming that the self in solipsism has a cause. The self could've always existed, like the Abrahamic god. Instead, here's a better argument against solipsism:

Obviously, in solipsism not everything is a conscious creation of the mind, since things can't be altered through sheer desire alone. Thus, there must be an unconscious mind that creates the world. This becomes functionally equivalent to realism. Since solipsism is unnecessary complexity, it can thus be eliminated via Occam's Razor.

Edited January 31, 2011 by vaguelyhumanoid

[RJ]

SHUSH THOSE ANNOYING SOLIPSISTS FOREVER

There is in fact a way to refute solipsism. And it has infallibly helped me with these hypocritical philosophical nuisance many many times. So far no solipsists I met managed to counter it.

step 1: argue that if you shoot the solipsist in the head, after you don't disappear you can stand there and laugh at their corpse. If they accept this, you are done.

Most of hem will tell you death is apparent only from your perspective of being a fantasy, but their "self" would still exist while they are apparently lying dead to you. In other words, they will deny that they can die in their "dream of reality".

step 2: in that case dare them to step in front of a bus.
If they refuse, you are done.
If they don't refuse (this never happened to me), you are done according to step 1.

RJ