3 Questions For Believers (A work in progress.)

[Jackalope]

I don't think premise 2 is universally the case, either.

Are you a conscious, sapient being, or are you a convincing illusion of same? Or are you a product of my own mind?

Prove it empirically.

If I am a product of your mind, the empirical verification still informs me of that which is useful to describe and perform effectively in the reality of that illusion. If it is illusory, there is no functional difference, as it continues to be the reality I inhabit in that scenario.

There is no functional difference *to you*, but yet in that scenario, your functional reality has a feature "other minds exists" that in reality is not true (were that to be the case) - and so, in that case, empiricism has led you to a conclusion which is false.

You're effectively asking me to prove a negative.

No. I'm asking you to prove that your consciousness is actually extant in the same reality as mine, which makes it necessary for you to examine and eliminate the alternatives. Yes, I'm invoking solipsism - which we eliminate not because we can prove that it is not so, but because it is not a useful position that we can derive knowledge from.

I have no empirical reason to suspect that I am an illusion within a solipsistic mind, and should empirically prove that is not the case.

No, no, no. Prove it to *me*, using only empiricism. I have no doubt that you're sufficiently convinced.

Are you telling me you believe absolutes, such as absolute truth exist objectively?

I most certainly do not. I'm merely suggesting that there are elements of our perceived reality that are not within the realm of empiricism (such as other minds), nor are they necessarily sharable in any real way.

Don't get me wrong, empiricism is an extremely useful tool to discover facts about reality. It isn't without limits, however - and to suggest that it's the *only* way to know anything is an overreach, in my opinion.