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

[sbeaulieu]

Curious...are the babies that solopsists make real?

/ducks

~ Shane

[Alfonso Jones]

You see consciousness as something embedded in an external reality. Not so the solipsist, to him his consciousness is the equivalent of reality, it is axiomatic, just as existence is axiomatic for Rand. Saying to him that his consciousness causes something is meaningless to him, just as it is meaningless to say that reality "causes" something. Everything he observes he considers to be part of his consciousness, just as we everything that we observe consider to be part of reality. You may find this a silly position to take, but it is logically unassailable.

The proof proper does not assume that consciousness is a member of external reality, because that would be begging the question in favor of my conclusion. And for the solipsist, consciousness is the whole of reality, yes. But if the solipsist is consistent, he will discover that his position logically collapses, as I demonstrate above. The proof I gave was assuming the case of solipsism and reaching a contradiction.

1. If solipsism is true, then everything that begins to exist has a cause, and this cause must be my perceptions or by an internal faculty able to cause perceptions.

2. The first state of my perceptions began to exist.

3. Therefore, my perceptions must have a cause.

4. (From 1) This cause must be my internal faculty that is able to cause perceptions to begin to exist.

5. My internal faculty that causes perceptions must have a content.

6. This content itself began to exist.

7. Therefore, this content has a cause.

8. This cause cannot be itself and cannot be from perceptions.

9. Therefore, solipsism is false.

My advice is that if you still don't see the faults in this argument as documented in comments by others, go find yourself a solipsist (trust me, they can't find you - by their own assumptions!) and try the argument with them.

My prediction is that you will experience an inability to successfully communicate starting with . . . #1.

Remember . . . by your own assumption you are dealing with someone who has no trust in their own perceptions, who is willing to live based on one set of assumptions while maintaining a radically contradictory set of assumptions, and who is more interested in spinning rationalist theory than in understanding reality.

Bill P

[Dragonfly]

Actually, I can prove that everything that begins to exist has a cause under the assumption of solipsism, for, if not, then a causeless percept necessarily has no ties to my consciousness

Not at all. For the solipsist there isn't any reason that every percept that begins to exist in his consciousness should have a cause. It is in his consciousness, so it does have by definition ties to his consciousness, whether it has a cause or not. And just as in the "real" world, you cannot prove that something that begins to exist must have a cause.

[Hazard]

For the solipsist there isn't any reason that every percept that begins to exist in his consciousness should have a cause.

Dragonfly,

You are arguing that Flagg's argument is invalid because the Solipsist rejects Objective truth and reason, yes? Whether the reason exists in the Solipsist's opinion or not is irrelevant. Flagg's proof deals with Objective reasoning and logic; the Solipsist's acceptance of that in no way modifies the truth of his statement.

Jordan

[tjohnson]

Flagg's proof deals with Objective reasoning and logic; the Solipsist's acceptance of that in no way modifies the truth of his statement.

Well if the "proof deals with Objective reasoning and logic" then it only applies to objectivists I guess, not solopsists. B)

[Neil Parille]

Betrand Russell had a quip about a woman who wrote him saying that solipsism was such a good idea that she didn't know why other people rejected it.

Speaking of Russell, Rand says in Objectively Speaking that, after Wittgenstein, Russell was the worst philosopher of the 20th century. Putting aside his politics, he doesn't seem as bad as many others.

-Neil Parille

http://objectiblog.blogspot.com/

[tjohnson]

Speaking of Russell, Rand says in Objectively Speaking that, after Wittgenstein, Russell was the worst philosopher of the 20th century. Putting aside his politics, he doesn't seem as bad as many others.

Is there any such thing as good philosopher?

[Hazard]

Flagg's proof deals with Objective reasoning and logic; the Solipsist's acceptance of that in no way modifies the truth of his statement.

Well if the "proof deals with Objective reasoning and logic" then it only applies to objectivists I guess, not solopsists. B)

Allow me to rephrase my statement: If the Solipsist rejects the existence of reason and logic than it is impossible to prove the falsehood of Solipsism to the Solipsist (just as it is impossible to prove to someone that ignores reason and logic that 2+2=4) but it is possible to prove the falsehood of Solipsism to those who acknowledge the existence of reason and logic in the objective universe.

Just as it is impossible to explain to someone who was born blind what a color looks like, so is it impossible to explain a logical proof to someone who rejects logic.

Aside from my main point:

Do Solipsists acknowledge the existence of truth?

Jordan

[tjohnson]

Allow me to rephrase my statement: If the Solipsist rejects the existence of reason and logic than it is impossible to prove the falsehood of Solipsism to the Solipsist (just as it is impossible to prove to someone that ignores reason and logic that 2+2=4) but it is possible to prove the falsehood of Solipsism to those who acknowledge the existence of reason and logic in the objective universe.

Just as it is impossible to explain to someone who was born blind what a color looks like, so is it impossible to explain a logical proof to someone who rejects logic.

Aside from my main point:

Do Solipsists acknowledge the existence of truth?

Jordan

I don't acknowledge the existence of truth, but I'm no solopsist. BTW, do you think it's feasible to explain the theory of the EM spectrum to a blind person so they would have some idea what color means even though they can never experience it?

[Dragonfly]

Allow me to rephrase my statement: If the Solipsist rejects the existence of reason and logic than it is impossible to prove the falsehood of Solipsism to the Solipsist (just as it is impossible to prove to someone that ignores reason and logic that 2+2=4) but it is possible to prove the falsehood of Solipsism to those who acknowledge the existence of reason and logic in the objective universe.

A solipsist doesn't have to ignore reason and logic, his viewpoint can be perfectly logically consistent.

Aside from my main point:

Do Solipsists acknowledge the existence of truth?

Why not? Only it isn't the truth in the sense of a statement about an external world, but about the consistency in what he experiences, the form can be exactly the same even if the interpretation is different.

[Hazard]

G.S.,

Respectfully, you have contradicted yourself. Is it true that you believe that truth does not exist? Well that is what you just wrote, therefore you do believe in truth. Otherwise the statement that you made would be false, in which case you would believe in truth anyway.

Truth must exists because in order for it to not exist, it would have to be true that it does not exist - again contradiction. However, if you believe that contradictions exist then I suppose we must remain at odds.

There is no point in explaining the theory of the EM spectrum to a blind person unless they have a scientific curiosity about it. It won't give them any sense for what a color looks like.

Dragonfly,

Assuming Flagg's logic is flawless, the Solipsist's viewpoint cannot be logically consistent because it would contradict Flagg's logic. And I do not understand your statement about the relationship between truth and the consistency in what he experiences. What form and interpretation are you referring to?

Jordan

[tjohnson]

Truth must exists because in order for it to not exist, it would have to be true that it does not exist - again contradiction.

Sorry, let me explain. I believe in something called similarity of structure. This basically means that our language has a structure and what our language represents has a structure and when they are similar we have knowledge. This would be my version of what you call truth.

[Brant Gaede]

Truth must exists because in order for it to not exist, it would have to be true that it does not exist - again contradiction.

Sorry, let me explain. I believe in something called similarity of structure. This basically means that our language has a structure and what our language represents has a structure and when they are similar we have knowledge. This would be my version of what you call truth.

Ah. Faith!

It's interesting that my friend Petr Beckmann wrote a book called "The Structure of Language." He sold me his last or one of his last copies when I visited him in Dec. 1989 in Boulder, CO. If you have any interest you might check Amazon. He was not just referring to English or the Indo-European languages generally, I believe. Unfortunately it's in my storage shed with 1500 other books and I can't just go and grab it.

--Brant

Edited April 20, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't acknowledge the existence of truth, but I'm no solopsist.

GS,

At lease we know who not to rely on when we seek the truth of something we need to know.

And that's the truth.

Michael

[Hazard]

Brant,

Why store your books when you know you wont be able to find them later?

Jordan

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

Why store your books when you know you wont be able to find them later?

Jordan

I can find them. I can't find it.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

I don't acknowledge the existence of truth, but I'm no solopsist.

GS,

At lease we know who not to rely on when we seek the truth of something we need to know.

And that's the truth.

Michael

Very true. (similar in structure)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

I was watching a cop show on TV and a courtroom scene appeared. On swearing in a witness, the clerk asked: "Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?"

If the witness were you, would you answer the following?: "The truth does not exist."

Michael

[DavidMcK]

I think Flagg was trying to get feedback as to whether his argument was nice and tight, and of course it is a standard math technique to assume what you wish to disprove to see what kind of contradiction it leads to. Flagg's argument seems fairly tight to me, even though he is introducing two concepts (causality and perception) that are inherently 'outer' related, still he is showing that the idea of generating the whole universe internally is pretty dumb.

[tjohnson]

I was watching a cop show on TV and a courtroom scene appeared. On swearing in a witness, the clerk asked: "Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?"

If the witness were you, would you answer the following?: "The truth does not exist."

No, I have no problem repeating some foolish credo if it makes the court happy.

[Brant Gaede]

I was watching a cop show on TV and a courtroom scene appeared. On swearing in a witness, the clerk asked: "Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?"

If the witness were you, would you answer the following?: "The truth does not exist."

No, I have no problem repeating some foolish credo if it makes the court happy.

Agent of the court: "Repeat after me: 'I pulled the trigger and shot John Smith in the ass.'"

GS: "I pulled the trig--HEY! Wait a minute!"

Judge: "GS, the court is NOT happy!"

--Brant

[tjohnson]

Lawyer: What color was the get away car?

Color blind witness: Green

Lawyer: Is that the truth?

Color blind witness: Yes

[Robert_Bumbalough]

Now, under A-time theory, everything that begins to exist has a cause

Why? That we often find causes for events doesn't mean that this always must be the case. That is the fallacy of induction. So your argument has already been derailed at this point, no need to read further...

Hello folks: This message comes to you from Robert Bumbalough. Although Dragonfly posted this comment about a year and a half ago, the issue bugs me. Please forgive me if I'm posting this in a wrong thread. I respect people who think whatever their take on Objectivism.

It is my understanding that the problem of induction refers to how to justify inductive reasoning. So I question why is inductive reasoning a fallacy? If existence is not a product of consciousness and actually does exist independent of consciousness, and if reality is casual and A does indeed equal A for objects other than quantum particles and for events other than radioactive decay or quantum vacuum fluctuations such as speculated in Hawking Radiation, then uniformity of nature is both a necessary and sufficient condition to justify induction. That a Boise Einstein Condensate will behave in peculiar manner does not mean that angular momentum is likely to stop working in the next few hours so we can be 100 percent certain that the Sun will come up tomorrow and that there does exist a logical connection between the way reality behaved in the past will be the way that it will act in the future or that there will be a future.

Hume did not know about genetics or evolution so his knowledge was incomplete regarding the swans. It is the case that black swans show up from time to time. His expectation that all swans should be white may have been sourced in Christian religious creation teachings about "Kinds" of animals. It is known that mythology has no explanatory power. I think it may be the case that thinking the uniformity of nature not a sufficient condition to justify induction is due to a dearth of knowledge about how nature works and requires omniscient knowledge that no natural causation can give rise to some effect or a lack thereof subject to inductive reasoning.

However, even if casualty of material existence is not sufficient to vivify induction, then a probability buttressed induction can be substituted that entails the uniformity of nature a necessary condition and a Bayesian probability greater than P of the cause yielding the effect a sufficient condition. Since different thinkers will assign different subjective values to prior probabilities given evidence in question to the concept or notion being inducted, the the law of large numbers will work to converge the Bayesian number generated by a bunch of different Bayes Theorem crunchers to some value as the limit of the number of computations approach infinity.

Here's link to a discussion of this angle on validating induction.

If induction cannot be justified by any means, then it would seem to me that Objectivism and any other philosophical system dependent on reality would fail at a metaphysical context and the Communists would be right. Reality cannot be known or understood by an individual and a collective consciousness by it mystical power would somehow justify big shots enslaving everyone else. Its important to me that I know a solution to what Dragonfly called the fallacy of induction. Can the reader help me out here? (Picture Bumbalough standing beside the freeway in the rain on a dark night holding up the jumper cables.) Thanks for reading and maybe helping me out. Best Wishes.

***************************************************************

10-11-2010 20:48 GMT-6; Addendum added by Robert Bumbalough. I'm probably wrong, but I'm used to that. So Here goes. While driving home tonight, I had a few thoughts about the induction fallacy thingy.

(snip. Text removed for reworking and redacting.)

Best Wishes and Regards, Thanks for Reading; I appreciate you all.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Robert Bumbalough

[Starbuckle]

Dragonfly wrote: "That we often find causes for events doesn't mean that this always must be the case. That is the fallacy of induction. So your argument has already been derailed at this point, no need to read further..."

I just knew, using my knowledge of reality, that Dragonfly was going to read further anyway, as subsequent posts attributed to Dragonfly confirm. (I also enjoy the comments on boards, or on news sites below political articles, that run something like "[Rapidfire unsupported assertion.] 'Nuff said." Sure, enough said from you, but the treatise writers could probably say a little more.)

What would a "causeless event" be? What is an "event"? Isn't it some action or actions of an entity or entities, with specific natures, existing in a specific context with relationships to other entities that also are what they are? A causeless event sounds like magic, like the sort of thing we experience in dreams, which the solipsist suggests may be all that we (er, he, or her...I?) ever experience. But the causeless events in dreams are caused by whatever causes us to dream to begin with, and whatever then affects the course of the dream. Biology and the subconscious are often cited, as well as what happened the other day at work or with the in-laws, childhood traumas, etc.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Starbuckle

[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.