Non-existence

[LukeMC]

That is sense data. Sense data does not equal sense data representing a reality outside of your mind.

That's not what I was trying to say. I was trying to demonstrate how our bodies are just as real as our minds, as we experience the physical sensations of our bodies in much the same way as the physical sensations on our minds. I wasn't arguing for a world outside of the mind/body, only making the point that the body must be as real as the mind.

I think therefore I am is a reductionist view of human eing, but there is nothing in that phrase which contradicts solipsism, since in solipsism, your mind actually is.

But your body should also be. This is my point so far.

I never concluded that "there is no objective world", only that proposing such a world outside of your mind, is proposing more complexity, not less, than proposing only your conscious experience (and nothing more).

I am aware of your position on the complexity argument. And until you clarified your position in your last post, I just assumed you took this position seriously. What I should instead say is that in denying ones most basic capacities for knowledge, how can anybody claim a logical progression to solipsism if even their thoughts may not be trust-worthy?

No. I believe reality does exist outside of our minds. I am only saying that going by mere evidence, reductionism and skepticism, solipsism is the simplest, most reduced form of affirmation of our existence. Proposing more than the mind is proposing more complexity than is warranted by empirical data, as the empirical sense-data do not require to be actual entities outside your mind, but only require to be affirmed as data we have conscious experience of. Speculating as to their origin is contrary to absolute skepticism and reductionism, and not warranted by empirii, but only by properly basic beliefs in your epistemic structure (e.g. on par with "my mind exists", then "reality exists" and "God exists", all things usually justified by properly basic beliefs from personal/subjective qualitative experience and knowledge, even when no evidence explicitly requires them independently of the personal/subjective qualitative experience and knowledge).

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure you are correct in asserting that solipsism is the most reduced form of affirmation of our existence. It raises far, far more questions than it can answer. For example, in a solipsistic universe, everything in existence in this universe was generated by the mind. One's mind has created a multitude of languages, a hundred billion galaxies with a hundred billion stars each, a quantum realm of absolute madness and many other complexities which the mind can then experience and observe. For this kind of universe to only exist in ones mind, it raises the question of why the mind created such a universe, how it created such a universe, how long it can keep it the universe up, when it created it, etc, etc.

Concluding that this universe was generated in the mind and exists solely in this isolated mind requires an incredibly complex mind which can not only create a universe unknowingly, but can operate within it and interact with its simulated creation. I consider this a far more complex situation than the universe being a real realm, and humanity (minds included) being a part of this all-inclusive plane. A universe generating itself, forgetting itself and interacting with itself requires quite a bit more than a universe just "being".