Solipsism Redefined: Unfalsifiable No More

[vanesch]

An interesting aspect of Solipsisim is that if reality is purely the subjective projection of an individuals mind, then that individual is responsible for the works of Shakespeare, Einstein, Russel, Godel, Beethoven, Mozart, Escher, mathematics, religion, science, constructivist realities, etc, the list continues indefinitely.

Not really. Those works only exist to the extend in which you "know about them". And if you "know about them" they are not "out of reach".

The point is, that this is still LESS than postulating that all of them exist in all of their detail, which is what non-solipsist views maintain. In a solipsist view, the only stuff that has to exist, is what you experience. In a non-solipsist view, MUCH MORE is postulated to exist (an entire universe).

So, solipsism is the application of Occam's razor with a turbo charger on it

It is the *minimalist* necessarily "theory of everything", because it can leave out most of the universe, and it only cannot leave out your individual observations and experiences. Because if they were left out, you'd falsify it (you'd make an observation which is NOT in agreement with "what is postulated to exist"). So the MINIMUM view needed to explain all your observations, is the solipsist one. All the rest postulates the existence of myriads of things which are not STRICTLY necessary and which could be left out without a falsification being possible.

 

[vanesch]

Hm, I should maybe add here that I'm not adhering to solipsism... However, I find it an interesting starting point to explore any ontological considerations one might have, because it puts into a relative perspective any form of certainty one might have concerning "what exists".

The reason that the "minimalist" ontology of solipsism is not the most satisfying one, is that it doesn't give any structure to the regularities of our observations/subjective experiences. The main reason of scientific activity is to try to find regularities in our sensations/observations: to *summarise* many observations as repetitions of a similar kind of pattern. Assuming that there might be something "real" to these repetitions and regularities, makes us make the hypothesis of the existence of extra stuff beyond our sensations, because that very hypothesis of existence allows us to give some consistence to these regularities. The hypothesis of an external world is hence driven by the consistency of the "picture" it presents ; consistency which is nothing else but the regularities and the repetitions of patterns.
It is because we have (memories of) repeated visual sensations of "other bodies" that we give some status of external existence to it, for instance. And the similarity between the visual sensations of other bodies, and our own, makes us make the hypothesis that we're somehow similar to those external bodies. And so on. And each time we do this, the picture seems to fit together. So all in all, there's too much regularity and repetition and pattern in our observations/sensations for us to lay down the hypothesis that "there is something to it" - which we have to do if we go for solipsism.

In other words, even for a solipsist, there's something to gain by making the working hypothesis of the existence of an external world.

 

[heusdens]

How could a solipsist explain there is a world in the first place (even if that world ony exists in the mindly experience of oneself)?

Since he cannot answer that question, his worldview would need to break down, or he would have to admit something like that the world came from nowhere/nothing all of it self.

 

[whatta]

No, that's the point. Take our "material" universe. We take it that the matter in it doesn't come alive because "someone is watching it". In the same way, you could conceive that the "character" comes to life just by its abstract Platonic existence.

to push it further. why do we need a map (a number)? there can be a number, even many of them, right? and that's enough, basically; with nothing at hand, we have just exploded your world by infinite amount of such a characters. then, add to that different kinds of numbers we do not even know yet but that can make all new sorts of maps, that again can be used to describe miriads of worlds. all within nothing. too bad such a mind gymnastics isn't practical :(

 

[whatta]

How could a solipsist explain there is a world in the first place (even if that world ony exists in the mindly experience of oneself)?

Since he cannot answer that question, his worldview would need to break down, or he would have to admit something like that the world came from nowhere/nothing all of it self.

solipsists must be real pros in imagineing uncaused events ;) maybe it's because me and you can't imagine them we aren't solipsists?

 

[mosassam]

Just trying to be Devil's Advocate. Doesn't the collapse of a wave function strengthen the case for solipsism. Shrodinger 'causes' reality by opening the box - prior to this it exists in a 'maybe' or uncertain state. Does Wheeler's observer-created universe also strengthen the case?
How do solipsists view each other? That each is a figment of the others imagination? How can they have functional relationships with members of the opposite sex or is it because they can't that they are solipsists in the first place?
Qow many solipsists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Duude, there is no light bulb.

 

[whatta]

and there is no spoon, too.

 

[AnssiH]

Why would anyone believing in solipsism ever try to convince "the others" that such is the case? Considering solipsism is a waste of thought regardless of what the truth might be.

Assume solipsism is false -> this thread is moot.
Assume solipsism is true. The thread is still moot! :)

-Anssi

 

[mosassam]

Good point. How did solipsism even take off. It would require at least one person trying to convince a figment of his imagination that he was a figment of his imagination. Surely after a few 'figments' have boxed you round the ears a couple of times you'd give up.

 

[Ghostfaith]

Ok, but why don't you go then for the simplest of all views, which simply says that NOTHING exists, and that you don't exist, and that you don't have experiences, observations, anything ?

No thing doesn't exist. No thing... no thing is nothing that is on the table. I do say this V. But if there is no thing, then there is no self as well. What you have to come to terms with, in your own philosophy, is why you have assumed that no thing would mean total void. It doesn't. *Things* are a product of meaning. Beyond that, stuff still goes on, it's just that there is *no thing*... *En Sof* *Nagual* - no thing. Mystical traditions have talked about this for millenia.

 

[mosassam]

Just to expand on Ghostfaith's point. Reality may well be a unified whole and, if so, no "things" exist, not even the unified whole itself. Rational Mind fragments this unified whole and in doing so creates "things" including the Self. The nature of Rational Mind demands that it separate, label, classify and categorise 'reality'. In reality, this separation doesn't actually exist, but this is incredibly difficult to see as we use our Rational Mind to try and see it. When Rational Mind disappears everything doesn't disappear with it, everything simply assumes its true nature (ie: not separate, unified)
I've just made all this up!
(I think)

 

[AnssiH]

Just to expand on Ghostfaith's point. Reality may well be a unified whole and, if so, no "things" exist, not even the unified whole itself. Rational Mind fragments this unified whole and in doing so creates "things" including the Self. The nature of Rational Mind demands that it separate, label, classify and categorise 'reality'. In reality, this separation doesn't actually exist, but this is incredibly difficult to see as we use our Rational Mind to try and see it. When Rational Mind disappears everything doesn't disappear with it, everything simply assumes its true nature (ie: not separate, unified)
I've just made all this up!
(I think)

Well done, you worded my view exactly, but much clearer than I think I ever have :)

"Fallacy of identity" (of things & self) it could be called.

-Anssi

 

[mosassam]

Well done, you worded my view exactly, but much clearer than I think I ever have

The 'unified whole/fallacy of identity' view expressed above has directly evolved from an initial conundrum I had concerning Time when I first joined this thread about 3 months. I had the great fortune of bumping into yourself on the "Is time an illusion thread". Your patience and insight have been inspiring. Many thanks Anssi, keep helping me and others like me.

 

[AnssiH]

The 'unified whole/fallacy of identity' view expressed above has directly evolved from an initial conundrum I had concerning Time when I first joined this thread about 3 months. I had the great fortune of bumping into yourself on the "Is time an illusion thread". Your patience and insight have been inspiring. Many thanks Anssi, keep helping me and others like me.

Well I'll be quoting your succint explanation of the identity fallacy from now on so thanks to you ;)

 

[Paul Martin]

Reality may well be a unified whole and, if so, no "things" exist, not even the unified whole itself. Rational Mind fragments this unified whole and in doing so creates "things" including the Self.

Does the Rational Mind exist? If so, is it the unified whole (it can't be part of it otherwise the unified whole wouldn't be a unified whole without parts)? Or, is it outside of, and separate from Reality? If that is the case, we would have to conclude that the Rational Mind is not real but nonetheless exists, wouldn't we?

The nature of Rational Mind demands that it separate, label, classify and categorise 'reality'.

Since we each seem to "have", or "experience" a Rational Mind, it seems as though we are somewhat familiar with at least part of its nature. On that basis, I tend to agree with your statement here. Do you think that by similar introspection we can come to even greater understanding of this Rational Mind and its relationship with the rest of Reality, or to Reality itself, whichever is the case?

Warm regards,

Paul

 

[AnssiH]

Does the Rational Mind exist? If so, is it the unified whole (it can't be part of it otherwise the unified whole wouldn't be a unified whole without parts)? Or, is it outside of, and separate from Reality? If that is the case, we would have to conclude that the Rational Mind is not real but nonetheless exists, wouldn't we?

If I may butt in a bit...

"Rational Mind" is referring to "subjective experience", not to a physical "thing" having an experience.

Like Mosassam mentioned, it is hard to see all this because it is intrinsic to our mind (brain) that reality is classified into things.

It is not possible to understand or even to think about any system without breaking it into sensible "things" (that then can be thought of being in interaction with each others). Rational mind is based on this kind of classification process. (Another way to put it, the system is broken into semantical components, which make up the mental model we are aware of... Because of having a mental model of reality, we can make predictions about its behaviour. And all our rational behaviour is based on this capability of making predictions)

So, the subjective experience definitely exists, but if we want to understand the real nature of the subjective experience, it can be erroneous to assume identity to one's own mind. As if you are metaphysically the same person today that you were yesterday. What you have is memories of yesterday; existing by the virtue of physical configuration of the brain. What is there that persists in a person metaphysically? Well, there is absolutely no need to assume anything else persists from moment to moment, but the memories. It is part of our semantical worldview that we assume there is an objective "self"

This is not the most complicated philosophy but it is not the most intuitive one either... Still it comes as a kind of a natural revelation to many people at some point during their lives. At least to those who are inclined towards materialism.

For a deeper look, check out:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0262633086/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

All he did was posit the existence of a process ontology, something already constructed from eastern philosophical and religious paradigms. The Dao or Tao being the most famous example.

The concept that reality can't be defined or classified, is really really ancient. Substance ontology, what most of embrace, emerged out of the west.

Explain how we would have made the advancements we have made, had we not assumed the universe is built upon constituent parts?

 

[AnssiH]

Explain how we would have made the advancements we have made, had we not assumed the universe is built upon constituent parts?

We would not have. That is the way we make "valid models". Valid as in yielding valid predictions. There is nothing wrong in understanding a system in any way that we find useful, but the difference between scientific models and ontological considerations must be kept firmly in mind here.

I'll just refer to myself:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1256285&postcount=297

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

We would not have. That is the way we make "valid models". Valid as in yielding valid predictions. There is nothing wrong in understanding a system in any way that we find useful, but the difference between scientific models and ontological considerations must be kept firmly in mind here.

I'll just refer to myself:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1256285&postcount=297

I have read lots of Kuhn and Popper what do they have to do with ontology? They are philosophers of science.

Kuhn's distinction of paradigms between normal science and revolutionary science, do not correlate to what you are saying.

Also, again, you both seem to be presenting a slightly modified process ontology, which I already stated, is nothing new. Not to say it shouldn't be discussed but I feel as if some people here think they are being original.

 

[AnssiH]

I have read lots of Kuhn and Popper what do they have to do with ontology? They are philosophers of science.

Kuhn's distinction of paradigms between normal science and revolutionary science, do not correlate to what you are saying..

Well granted there are many ways to interpret Kuhn, but to me his observations speak volumes about hpw physical theories really are just models of reality. A model as in something that can yield valid predictions without capturing the real nature of the system it is predicting.

Also, again, you both seem to be presenting a slightly modified process ontology, which I already stated, is nothing new. Not to say it shouldn't be discussed but I feel as if some people here think they are being original.

Don't worry, I know many people have written books voicing the same ideas hundreds of years ago, and I think it goes without saying we can take any given philosophy today, and trace someone else who's had the same idea thousands of years back. When I think of something that is new to me, I usually find some writings about it pretty quickly. Oh the joy of internet. :)

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

Well granted there are many ways to interpret Kuhn, but to me his observations speak volumes about hpw physical theories really are just models of reality. A model as in something that can yield valid predictions without capturing the real nature of the system it is predicting.



Don't worry, I know many people have written books voicing the same ideas hundreds of years ago, and I think it goes without saying we can take any given philosophy today, and trace someone else who's had the same idea thousands of years back. When I think of something that is new to me, I usually find some writings about it pretty quickly. Oh the joy of internet. :)

You are quite correct with your last paragraph. Perhaps it is to abrupt of me to conclude that your idea has nothing to do with Kuhn. I will read into it a bit deeper.

Regards,
-cP

 

[mosassam]

Does the Rational Mind exist? If so, is it the unified whole (it can't be part of it otherwise the unified whole wouldn't be a unified whole without parts)? Or, is it outside of, and separate from Reality? If that is the case, we would have to conclude that the Rational Mind is not real but nonetheless exists, wouldn't we?

I would like to go through this slowly, if I may, as I'm on new ground myself.
Nothing can be separate or "outside" the unified whole but what does "unified whole" mean? Obviously, one sense must be the inclusion of everything known (and unknown) into a single grouping, but, to me at least, this gives the impression of a "thing" (the unified whole) in which everything else exists. I find that I cannot agree with this view. At this moment I am inclined to view the unified whole, not as an 'entity', but as a 'state of being' (please remember, I'm flying by the seat of my pants here).
I am reminded that, in Quantum Theory, "things" have been replaced by "waves of probability patterns".
Although it may not be possible to speak validly of "parts" of the unified whole, it may be possible to speak of aspects of it without shattering its "wholeness". Day to day reality consists of separate parts and the Rational Mind reflects this aspect of the unified whole. However, human consciousness also experiences moments of 'wholeness' (the "Eureka moment" for the scientist, "being in the groove" for a musician, "being in the zone" for an athlete and so on). The problem arises when these deeply personal moments have to be communicated, they have to be "broken down" into their constituent parts and once this occurs we have moved from the realm of "wholeness" back into the realm of "separateness" (the Rational Mind.)
Can we even discuss the unified whole/fallacy of identity through the lens of the Rational Mind?

 

[mosassam]

All he did was posit the existence of a process ontology, something already constructed from eastern philosophical and religious paradigms. The Dao or Tao being the most famous example.

The view expressed of the unified whole/identity of fallacy posted above occurred as a personal comprehension or "revelation" (if I want to be dramatic). Whilst being vaguely aware of the paradigms you mention they had minimal impact on the above view. I first came to this forum after I comprehended that Time doesn't objectively exist. No doubt this must old news to you guys but it certainly wasn't to me and I was quite shocked to discover this, but to say "Oh, this has already been discovered" in no way invalidates my personal experience. (I must also confess that I don't know what 'process ontology' means).

The concept that reality can't be defined or classified, is really really ancient. Substance ontology, what most of embrace, emerged out of the west.

Through the view of the unified whole I must agree that reality can't be classifed (I'm not sure about 'defined'). Does this reflect a shortcoming that science will always have (has had) when trying to describe reality or can it be possible, with this great constraint still in place, that science has the flexibility to "make a bridge" from the 'separate' to the 'whole'? One of the main influences I had regarding the unified whole/fallacy of identity view was David Bohm's Implicate Order (As well as Fritjof Capra's "The Web of Life" and Robert Anton Wilson's "Quantum Psychology")

 

[AnssiH]

Can we even discuss the unified whole/fallacy of identity through the lens of the Rational Mind?

Not properly no. Any discussion and even any thoughts about some systems work by us having classified the system into parts. This is the most serious problem when trying to communicate this idea to someone else. You can only use improper words to describe it :P (i.e. it requires little bit of effort from the other party... not something people are too willing to do in 'net forums :)

-Anssi

 

[mosassam]

Any discussion and even any thoughts about some systems work by us having classified the system into parts. This is the most serious problem when trying to communicate this idea to someone else. You can only use improper words to describe it :P (i.e. it requires little bit of effort from the other party... not something people are too willing to do in 'net forums :)

1000% Amen
In my last post I spoke of the 'flexibility' science (physics) needs to reach beyond the obvious limitations of the Rational Mind. Definitions must be required but there seems to be a tendency for many people to want to define things "out of existence". Like-minded people must find a language that transcends the traditional limitations, unfortunately it will be one that must be based on trust, or even faith, in each other - a most unscientific principle. Criticism and scepticism will still be vital necessities but not for their own sake, and certainly not to be used as a sheild to protect oneself from the vague terror of uncertainty - the genuine fear of the unknown. In this respect, science and religion have been twins for too long.