RE: Non-existence
August 11, 2009 at 3:25 pm
(This post was last modified: August 11, 2009 at 3:29 pm by Jon Paul.)
(August 11, 2009 at 3:15 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: 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 contained in the mind.
I've already said it:
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.
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.
(August 11, 2009 at 2:53 pm)LukeMC Wrote: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.(August 11, 2009 at 2:34 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: 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.And nor did I within my arguments. So why then is it that you deny that a universe or system even exists within the mind?
The people who are the most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all.
-G. K. Chesterton
-G. K. Chesterton