(September 14, 2015 at 4:48 pm)Rational AKD Wrote:

(September 14, 2015 at 1:52 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: Rational, to me you are asserting knowledge of something outside our limitation of knowledge (based on Premise #1's "epistemic limitations").  You premise #1 can equally be stated as: "a metaphysically solipsist world (a world where only a mind exists) cannot be proven true due to epistemic limitations."

If you put that statement as Premise #1 (equally as true as YOUR Premise #1), then the rest of the assumptions do not follow.

for your parody, I would change one thing. I would say 'a metaphysically solipsist world cannot be proven true by experience alone due to epistemic limitations.' the argument, however, uses introspection and logic rather than external experience. and all premises 1 and 2 do is establish good reason that solipsism is possible. do you think solipsism is impossible? if not, then I could start at premise 3 to get to the conclusion.

Metaphysical solipsism is untrue. In that it appears to me to deny an external reality, other minds and the validity of the senses. All of which lead ultimately to fatal contradictions.

(September 14, 2015 at 3:00 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: On a general basis, no, an argument is not evidence of a claim about material reality (or natural reality, or whatever you want to call your made-up "simulation" land). As for the premises, your first one fails due to fallacious logic (specifically misplacing the burden of proof).

you misunderstand the intent of the first premise. i'm not saying 'you can't prove it wrong therefore it's true.' i'm saying 'it's impossible to prove it wrong, therefore it's unreasonable to presume it's impossible.' this simply follows, the definition of reasonable is a position that can be reasoned. if you can't prove it false, then you can't possibly reason it's impossible thus it's not reasonable to presume as such. this makes it reasonable to presume solipsism is possible as per premise 2.

Redbeard The Pink Wrote:Translation: the argument depends on presuppositions that it hopes to pass off as facts without anyone noticing.

in what world does 'introspection' translate to 'presuppositions'?

Redbeard The Pink Wrote:No, it's invalid because it's based on false logic

what 'false logic' is there?

Redbeard The Pink Wrote:It's mere speculation, unsupported by evidence

based on false logic and speculation? which premises are speculative?

Redbeard The Pink Wrote:So the only thing that exists is a mind and the thoughts it produces, and it's producing a simulation of a mind and the thoughts it produces...and now you're going in circles.

how about the only thing that exists is a mind, and produces lesser minds from his thoughts. and he produces a simulation of an apparent physical world.

Redbeard The Pink Wrote:To "map out a world to resemble something else," you need an existing model

perhaps it was a poor choice of words on my part. I meant, he mapped out a world in likeness to a physical one.' the world he mapped out of course would be completely fabricated as there is no actual physical world to look at.

Redbeard The Pink Wrote:*sigh* I was really looking forward to meeting an online theist who doesn't devolve into a condescending little prick when his butt gets hurt over how bad his reasoning is.

except you didn't address my reasoning, rather just criticized the conclusion. at least, not until this later post.

Redbeard The Pink Wrote:Regardless of whether your conclusion follows from your premises

wait... what was that I heard? regardless? so i'm not using false logic after all?

Redbeard The Pink Wrote:It is not logically sound to produce an unfalsifiable assertion

so by falsifiable you mean... what exactly? because making an argument automatically makes it falsifiable by the condition of debunking the premises or the validity of the logic. I can only assume you mean empirically verifiable in which case I would have to whole heartedly disagree with you. not everything can be empirically verified.

(September 14, 2015 at 3:08 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: It doesn't follow that because the existence of a solipsistic world can't be proven false that it is therefore possible.  There can be reasons why it can't be proven false in spite of it actually being a false proposition.  Just as in math, that there are propositions which can't be proven to be true doesn't imply that they are false.  Inability to disprove solipsism doesn't imply that it is possible.  The two properties, provability and possibility, are not directly related.  Just as material mind must be directly evidenced, so solipsism requires direct argument for its possibility.

Moreover, you're assuming that a full explanation of mind won't show how matter is essential to mind.  That's an argument from ignorance.

that's why premise 2 states it's unreasonable to presume it's impossible therefore it must be reasonably granted possible. it's saying it's unreasonable to believe what is impossible to prove. would you disagree?

and no, i'm not assuming that a full explanation of mind won't show how matter is essential to mind. i'm just saying matter isn't necessary within the concept of introspection, which is why there is no firm defeater for solipsism.

(September 14, 2015 at 3:07 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Premise 1 and 2 is flawed to me.  Solipsism would produce a consciousness conscious only of itself and thus a metaphysical contradiction.  

so you never heard of self awareness or introspection? this is where the phrase 'I think therefore I am' comes from. everything else you say builds on that one point so i'll leave it at that.

(September 14, 2015 at 1:36 pm)Rational AKD Wrote:

(September 14, 2015 at 9:23 am)Alex K Wrote: You are begging the question by deriving your definition of mind from the concept of solipsism, somewhere between 3. and 4...

I defined mind in the definitions section...

I Wrote:Mind- simply that which produces consciousness. you can think of it as a product of material interactions or its own substance, but either way it cannot be denied mind exists.

now if you're accusing me of equivocation, then I'll have to ask exactly where I'm equivocating and how I'm equivocating (how my definitions or use of the terms are different).

Your definition in the definitions section does not specify any further properties, is therefore empty, almost tautological. You could equally have said "The mind is the mind" and would not have said less. It is the specification of those properties that make the concept meaningful which I was actually referring to.

I've got some questions for you. Please note that I'm not real big into philosophy. If you talk over my head I'll probably just ignore you.

Having come to this conclusion (only mind and its perceptions, correct me if I'm wrong) does this alter in any way the way that you interact with perceived matter or reality?

Does your conclusion allow that each individuals mind is separate from yours or is their mind only a perception of yours?

With this conclusion and your minds awareness of it, can you alter your minds perception of matter or reality? Through properties of your mind alone? i.e. can you alter matter without using other perceived matter? Can your alter another persons mind only by changing your perceptions?

Is this a "it's only what I perceive and think that is significant, therefore I am my own god" position?

(September 14, 2015 at 5:25 pm)Rational AKD Wrote:

(September 14, 2015 at 3:08 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: It doesn't follow that because the existence of a solipsistic world can't be proven false that it is therefore possible.  There can be reasons why it can't be proven false in spite of it actually being a false proposition.  Just as in math, that there are propositions which can't be proven to be true doesn't imply that they are false.  Inability to disprove solipsism doesn't imply that it is possible.  The two properties, provability and possibility, are not directly related.  Just as material mind must be directly evidenced, so solipsism requires direct argument for its possibility.

Moreover, you're assuming that a full explanation of mind won't show how matter is essential to mind.  That's an argument from ignorance.

that's why premise 2 states it's unreasonable to presume it's impossible therefore it must be reasonably granted possible. it's saying it's unreasonable to believe what is impossible to prove. would you disagree?

Premises 1 and 2 are a classic argument from ignorance, and hence the conclusion that solipsism is possible doesn't follow.

wikipedia Wrote:Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false.

(September 14, 2015 at 5:36 pm)Alex K Wrote: Your definition in the definitions section does not specify any further properties, is therefore empty, almost tautological. You could equally have said "The mind is the mind" and would not have said less. It is the specification of those properties that make the concept meaningful which I was actually referring to.

i'm not interested in your opinions on my word usage. tell me, was the definition I provided for mind not consistent with its use in the premises of the argument? is the argument not valid because the definition I gave creates a logical inconsistency? those are the questions i'm interested in... you can argue semantics with someone else.

(September 14, 2015 at 5:41 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: I've got some questions for you. Please note that I'm not real big into philosophy. If you talk over my head I'll probably just ignore you.

Having come to this conclusion (only mind and its perceptions, correct me if I'm wrong) does this alter in any way the way that you interact with perceived matter or reality?

Does your conclusion allow that each individuals mind is separate from yours or is their mind only a perception of yours?

With this conclusion and your minds awareness of it, can you alter your minds perception of matter or reality? Through properties of your mind alone? i.e. can you alter matter without using other perceived matter? Can your alter another persons mind only by changing your perceptions?

Is this a "it's only what I perceive and think that is significant, therefore I am my own god" position?

ok. first question, it doesn't directly affect how you interact with reality. it can affect your perception, and philosophical position which can also affect how you behave and interact. for example, just as materialism implies atheism I would argue in a similar way idealism implies theism.

second, yes in idealism (but not solipsism) there is belief in minds distinct from your own. however, the only possible connection for these minds could be another mind (since idealism is a belief mind is fundamental). thus you have a belief in one mind that contains all other minds and creates the reality we experience. in other words, we're all derived from God's mind in his simulated physical world.

and I think I answered you third question. as for your fourth, since reality is being simulated by God, we cannot alter it. and your fifth question is moot with the answers I just provided.

(September 14, 2015 at 6:33 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Premises 1 and 2 are a classic argument from ignorance, and hence the conclusion  that solipsism is possible doesn't follow.

wikipedia Wrote:Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false.

is that so? the first two premises was specifically to show it is by definition it is unreasonable to believe solipsism is impossible. that means to our epistemic knowledge (for all we know and could possibly learn) solipsism is possible. as such, it is then also reasonable to conclude solipsism is actually possible. you can try to argue we can't use epistemic knowledge to make metaphysical claims and therefore we should be undecided in those terms... but then that would also be to divorce metaphysical knowledge from knowledge you could attain. thus it would not be reasonable as to say 'we can't know about the metaphysical' as that itself is a metaphysical claim that you likewise could not claim to know. thus the only reasonable alternative is to presume we can know of the metaphysical and therefore solipsism is possible.