Non-existence

[Kyuuketsuki]

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 am NOT INTERESTED in arguing any of your crap about solipsism ... it wasn't necessary to argue when we were discussing virtualisation/dreaming/real vs. unreal before, it isn't necessary now! You are using it as a shield!

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 key point is that YOU are wrong when you claim that an unreal world (supposedly indistinguishable form the real one) is equally or less complex than the real one ... this is not true (for reason previously supplied)!

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.

Don't you get it, moron? I couldn't care less if solipsism were origami on toast ... I don't give a shit about the ontological and epistemological consequences of anything, I think it (all your philosophical and metaphysical posturing) is nothing but psychobabble!

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.

Yet you continue! And no, you can't, because there is no getting away from the fact that you are using your philosophical twaddle as a shield to prevent others arguing against you!

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.

Rubbish! Whilst I accept the mind views the real universe indirectly (it has to because none of our external sensory organs have a whit of intelligence whilst the brain cannot view directly) and, as such, the brain almost certainly operates through an internally supported mental model of its universe it is stupid to suggest the brain knows nothing of the universe in which it exists ... we are intelligent beings and are capable of interpreting what we "know" to operate within our universe.

Kyu