Non-existence

[Kyuuketsuki]

No. The solipsist acknowledges the existence of conscious experience, and nothing more. He does not make the leap of faith that the conscious experience represents an independent reality outside of the conscious experience in the mind itself.

It doesn't matter what the solipsist believes ... in order for either a virtual or dreamed universe to exist it must involve further layers of complexity therefore it is entirely reasonable to say that the assumption of a physical (real) universe is a more realistic proposition and therefore any claim otherwise is the EXTRAORDINARY claim and requires EXTRAORDINARY supporting evidence i.e. the two views ARE NOT equal!

A mind which must support ITSELF in addition to hosting the entire universal scenario ... it is therefore MORE COMPLEX than the base assumption of a physical universe!

The mind does not contain conscious experience of the entire universal scenario. Anything that falls outside the conscious experience of the mind does not exist, for the solipsist, since all that exists is the conscious experience of the mind.

If I don't consider your argument valid, why would I consider the stupidity of the solipsist argument in any way relevant?

The sense data of the mind, even if it was much larger than it is, will always be lessser and less complex than an actually existing reality, since sense data contains and records less than actually exists according to realism.

No, it wont for reasons already given.

You say a mind which supports itself, which is again metaontology and metaphysics, that speculates as to the ontogenesis of the mind, and why the mind is. But the only object of ontology is that which is, and the mind is. Just like the natural world exists, and there is no reason why it exists which is is not itself a part of the reality of the natural world (for the naturalist), there is no reason why the mind exists, which is not itself a part of the reality that the mind exists (for the solipsist) since that is all he affirms in existence at all.

No it is not meta-ontology and metaphysics ... it is straight forward logic and reason.

There is no reason why our minds exist? Yes there is ... they evolved as a function of the spare "computing" power of our brains and became evolutionarily useful. Although I accept there is a lot to be learned about that and how it happened there certainly is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to suggest that mind exist independently of body, brain or physical supporting infrastructure.

Kyu

[Jon Paul]

It doesn't matter what the solipsist believes

It does matter what the solipsist believes to how much complexity the solipsistic worldview contains and proposes.

in order for either a virtual or dreamed universe to exist it must involve further layers of complexity

The solipsist acknowledges the ontological reality of the mind, and it's conscious experience of sense-data. Nothing more.

The realist acknowledges the ontological reality of the mind. Just like the solipsist. Only, he also acknowledges the ontological reality of another 100 billion minds plus an indefinite number of ontological articles existing independently of the mind.

therefore it is entirely reasonable to say that the assumption of a physical (real) universe is a more realistic proposition and therefore any claim otherwise is the EXTRAORDINARY claim and requires EXTRAORDINARY supporting evidence i.e. the two views ARE NOT equal!

You have given no real reasons to think that solipsism proposes more complexity than realism. You have only asserted that it does. You have confounded it with the metaontological proposition of a "virtual reality simulation" which affirms the ontological reality of something other than conscious experience wholly unlike solipsism.

[omjag86]

Dagda,
To ask someone why they think the world is real is a very clever ploy. Since we can prove that our brains our constantly creating the illusion or map of reality so that we can function in the world, you are asking someone to explain reality from the perspective of their illusion maker. This makes it quite convenient for you to smash their response as an illusion so that YOUR truths can easily triumph.
The fact is the park is there, but every creature, down to the bacteria, senses it differently. Every living organism on this rock senses. We humans sense, we run our senses through our chemical analog computers, resulting in thoughts, feelings, and subsequent behaviors related to parks.
One person may have loved parks as a child and so they run to the swings and start swinging. Another person may have been molested in a park as a child and chooses not to enter the park at all.
Their RESPONSES to the park are based in the experience of their illusion makers, absolutely. However, through and through the park is still there and full of life-all life experiencing the park from their senses. So much so that a blind person could walk into the park and tell you that they are in a park. The only way the park would take on an optical illusion would be if the viewer had never seen a park before-then the chemical analog computer would take the closest background information it has to parks and offer up that illusion to give it's body and identity a sense of self so that it may continue to exist in a new environment.
Peace In
Omjag86

[Jon Paul]

No it is not meta-ontology and metaphysics ... it is straight forward logic and reason.

It is meta-ontology because you are speculating beyond the fact of being into the evolution of being, and already proposing more ontological complexity and extensiveness than a solipsist.

There is no reason why our minds exist? Yes there is ... they evolved as a function of the spare "computing" power of our brains and became evolutionarily useful. Although I accept there is a lot to be learned about that and how it happened there certainly is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to suggest that mind exist independently of body, brain or physical supporting infrastructure.

Again, all those things are metaontological deductions about the ontogenesis of your own mind based on the very sense-data that the solipsist believe makes up the only existing ontological reality, which don't exist independently of the mind, but only in the conscious experience of the mind.

[LukeMC]

The conscious experience of sense data is the only system there is, and that is not really a system but the ontological fact of the mind.

So let me get this straight. The mind exists, and that which it experiences is itself the mind and not a part of the mind nor a system within the mind?

[Rhizomorph13]

Luke,

If I have it right, there are no interactions in solipsist reality. The "experiences" are creations of the mind, not interactions between the mind and other things.

Rhizo

[Kyuuketsuki]

It doesn't matter what the solipsist believes

It does matter what the solipsist believes to how much complexity the solipsistic worldview contains and proposes.

No, it doesn't because I am not arguing what the solipsist believes I am arguing that a universe that is virtual or dreamed involves more complexity than one that is real.

in order for either a virtual or dreamed universe to exist it must involve further layers of complexity

The solipsist acknowledges the ontological reality of the mind, and it's conscious experience of sense-data. Nothing more.

I couldn't care less what some whacked up bunch of nutfuckers believe!

The realist acknowledges the ontological reality of the mind. Just like the solipsist. Only, he also acknowledges the ontological reality of another 100 billion minds plus an indefinite number of ontological articles existing independently of the mind.

No, the realist acknowledge reality! Using phrases such as "ontological reality" is just jumped up metaphysical hyper-bollocks ... it is utterly unnecessary to the conversation (as evidenced by the fact that it wasn't necessary before in this particular piece of the conversation) and I suspect you use them as something to retreat behind, an attempt to confuse your opponents by ducking behind philosophical complexities and language!

therefore it is entirely reasonable to say that the assumption of a physical (real) universe is a more realistic proposition and therefore any claim otherwise is the EXTRAORDINARY claim and requires EXTRAORDINARY supporting evidence i.e. the two views ARE NOT equal!

You have given no real reasons to think that solipsism proposes more complexity than realism. You have only asserted that it does. You have confounded it with the metaontological proposition of a "virtual reality simulation" which affirms the ontological reality of something other than conscious experience wholly unlike solipsism.

Stop with the fucking solipsism ... I repeat that I couldn't care less what some whacked up bunch of nutfuckers believe!

No it is not meta-ontology and metaphysics ... it is straight forward logic and reason.

It is meta-ontology because you are speculating beyond the fact of being into the evolution of being, and already proposing more ontological complexity and extensiveness than a solipsist.

No, it is not ... it is straight forward logic and reason!

There is no reason why our minds exist? Yes there is ... they evolved as a function of the spare "computing" power of our brains and became evolutionarily useful. Although I accept there is a lot to be learned about that and how it happened there certainly is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to suggest that mind exist independently of body, brain or physical supporting infrastructure.

Again, all those things are metaontological deductions about the ontogenesis of your own mind based on the very sense-data that the solipsist believe makes up the only existing ontological reality, which don't exist independently of the mind, but only in the conscious experience of the mind.

No they are not ... they are based purely on observations made by medics/scientists over long periods of time!

You know you can carry on this stupid word game all you want but I will not play ... your philosophy (specifically your metaphysical and meta-ontological crap) is bollocks and I will continue to consider it so until such time as you meet the challenge I have already set you! Meet that successfully and I will play your game, until then give us a break!

Kyu

[Jon Paul]

No, it doesn't because I am not arguing what the solipsist believes I am arguing that a universe that is virtual or dreamed involves more complexity than one that is real.

That's fine. But that doesn't address solipsism, since that is not solipsism, and as a consequence, you are refuting the simplicity of an ontology which is not solipsistic, and as a consequence, you fail to refute the simplicity of solipsism.

I couldn't care less what some whacked up bunch of nutfuckers believe!

The concern is not the solipsists, but rather how we know they are wrong, which is the only important issue here.

No, the realist acknowledge reality! Using phrases such as "ontological reality" is just jumped up metaphysical hyper-bollocks ... it is utterly unnecessary to the conversation (as evidenced by the fact that it wasn't necessary before in this particular piece of the conversation) and I suspect you use them as something to retreat behind, an attempt to confuse your opponents by ducking behind philosophical complexities and language!

I certainly don't. Solipsism is a claim with ontological and epistemological implications, just like realism. Ontology is the study of the nature of being, and epistemology is the study of the nature of knowing. Now there's nothing you don't know.

You know you can carry on this stupid word game all you want but I will not play ... your philosophy (specifically your metaphysical and meta-ontological crap) is bollocks and I will continue to consider it so until such time as you meet the challenge I have already set you! Meet that successfully and I will play your game, until then give us a break!

Right, and I will ignore you until you come up with real arguments instead of complaints over words you don't like.

So let me get this straight. The mind exists, and that which it experiences is itself the mind and not a part of the mind nor a system within the mind?

The mind exists, and the mind is the reality and entity which contains all conscious experience and sense-data which is consciously experienced. Nothing is known to exist except the mind.

---

If I have it right, there are no interactions in solipsist reality.

You are exactly right that there are no interactions, because there is nothing to interact with. The only existing thing is the mind.

[LukeMC]

The mind exists, and the mind is the reality and entity which contains all conscious experience and sense-data which is consciously experienced. Nothing is known to exist except the mind

That which is consciously experienced must exist in some form. If it doesn't exist then what IS conscious experience? How can you even verify that you have a mind if you cannot verify that your mind actually does enough to be considering "existing"? That which is experienced can be known to exist because if it didn't exist in any form then it wouldn't be experienced and there would be no conscious experience of anything and no reason to believe a mind exists.

[Jon Paul]

That which is consciously experienced must exist in some form.

It does exist, as conscious experience in the mind. I never said it doesn't exist. I said that the solipsist makes no leap of faith to the idea that the conscious experience in his mind represents a reality that exists independently, outside of the mind. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, in his mind, exactly as conscious experience of sense-data. It means that that sense-data does not represent a reality outside of the mind.

If it doesn't exist then what IS conscious experience? How can you even verify that you have a mind if you cannot verify that your mind actually does enough to be considering "existing"?

It is verifiable in that you consciously experience it, which also happens to be the prerequisite for calling yourself a mind.