(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.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
