Is there a scientific argument against solipsism?

Home Forums Science & tech Is there a scientific argument against solipsism?

Viewing 20 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #103635
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Is there a scientific argument against solipsism? If you cant even debunk solipsism, then why do you think you can debunk God?

    • #103636
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Is there a scientific argument against solipsism?
      That’s like asking if there are scissors that can cut love.
      Solipsism is entirely outside the realm of science, by definition.
      All I can tell you is you sort of have to ignore it if you want to make any decisions about the (allegedly) real world. It’s entirely reasonable to assume the world is generally as we perceive it, not because that’s correct, but because it’s the only way you aren’t going to starve.
      See also: Occam’s Razor and Hitchens’s Razor.

      >why do you think you can debunk God?
      That’s pure strawman. But, given almost all versions of God contradict the other versions of God, I think it’s safe to say that at most, only one version of God could be real. And perhaps not even that one.

      • #103637
        Anonymous
        Guest

        There are scissors that can cut love, anon.

      • #103640
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >All I can tell you is you sort of have to ignore it

        What a cop out. He rejects the notion of God with science and "evidence" that a creator might’ve made reality, yet when confronted with science itself saying there is no universe without the observer, he "has to ignore it".

        • #103641
          Anonymous
          Guest

          That’s absolute gibberish I’m having trouble following but parts of it definitely sound like strawmen.

          For instance, when did I:
          >rejects the notion of God with science
          ???

          When did creationist evidence even come up?
          >"evidence" that a creator might’ve made reality,
          ???

          And when did science say "there is no universe without the observer,"???
          And how would that even relate to what’s in this thread so far?

        • #103657
          Anonymous
          Guest

          What? He didn’t reject god because of science. Did you even read his post? also what science? If it isnt feasable, interesting, or useful to ponder about it scientifically then of course he would ignore it scrotebrain

          • #103670
            Anonymous
            Guest

            I just find it laughable you demand evidence for God, but you can’t even prove if other people exist. You scoff at "faith", yet you’re dependent on faith to even carry on living. You don’t know if you were even born, whether history is real…those could all be false memories and you have no absolute proof otherwise. Yet you scoff at "faith". You need faith to take the vaccine. Your heads are rammed right up your behinds

            • #103674
              Anonymous
              Guest

              people who have no faith are incapable of honesty, they have no faith, they do not understand what faith is, they never learned, nobody ever bothered to teach them, the concept is foreign to them and as a result, with no faith or understanding of what faith means, good faith action is impossible. acting in good faith includes not distributing intentionally misleading lies at every possible opportunity and the faithless are incapable of it.

            • #103682
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >but you can’t even prove if other people exist.
              DNA is explicit proof that more than one homosapien "person" exists, though.

              • #103683
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >DNA is explicit proof that more than one homosapien "person" exists
                Nope.

                • #103685
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Yea, different people clearly have different DNA and DNA is used to differentiate separate individual people, separate individual animals, even separate individual viruses all the time.

                  • #103686
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >implying you know DNA exists
                    I don’t think you understand what solipsism means.

                    • #103687
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      OP asked for existing scientific arguments proving there is more than one person and that is it, you are moving the goal posts at best, but being downright scrotebrained in reality.

                      • #103689
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        OP asked for a scientific argument against solipsism, which is impossible by definition.

                      • #103692
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >solipsism
                        which was further defined as the existence of other people

                        I just find it laughable you demand evidence for God, but you can’t even prove if other people exist. You scoff at "faith", yet you’re dependent on faith to even carry on living. You don’t know if you were even born, whether history is real…those could all be false memories and you have no absolute proof otherwise. Yet you scoff at "faith". You need faith to take the vaccine. Your heads are rammed right up your behinds

                        >you can’t even prove if other people exist
                        DNA sequencing proves an individual person is the result of a specific genetic sequence and that many people exist with unique gene sequences.

                      • #103694
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >which was further defined as the existence of other people
                        No, it wasn’t.

                      • #103703
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I even linked and quoted it.
                        How do you define it, then and if you have a different definition than the one I linked from another anon, doesn’t that disprove solipsism in favor or relative observation?

                      • #103712
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >I even linked and quoted it.
                        It was providing an example of something science can’t prove, not redefining solipsism to mean something other than what it actually means. Take pills now.

                      • #103718
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        That is basically what it means though, that there is only one real person, one mind, and you think it is you despite DNA evidence proving you are just one of many.

                      • #103724
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >That is basically what it means though
                        Solipsism is the position that only your own mind is sure to exist.

    • #103643
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The argument against solipsism is that all solipsists are useless fucks.

    • #103645
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >scientific argument against solipsism?
      If you can make scientific discoveries or generally the world works in ways you didn’t understand it’s probably not solipsismworld.

    • #103647
      Anonymous
      Guest

      it’s pretty easy to debunk solipsism. the same way you debunk the Raven paradox, it’s true but the math works out that the effect is insignificant, maybe even infinitesimal.

    • #103655
      Won't twerk for monkee PhD
      Guest

      prove it to yourself by draggging your fat ass to the 20th floor and jumping out the window. If soliipsism is true you gonna be fine.

    • #103656
      Anonymous
      Guest

      If you are a Solipsist in the traditional meaning, then you think only your mind exists. It’s Idealism, so the same rules apply which is that spacetime is not real but a product of your mind.

      Typically you will be conscious of some thought stream, you can often think of a line many times before you say it. However, with other people you cannot predict what they will say.

      Since there is only mind, there is then at least some element of mind that you cannot consciously access. And because space isn’t real, all people including your own form do not actually exist inside space and are superimposed upon each other. This is true of both Solipsism and Idealism.

      When you get that in Solipsism there are aspects of mind you cannot access or consciously control, and that Idealism also proposes nothing but mind (but without limiting it to what you personally can know), then you see that Idealism is more coherent…

      Furthermore, if you understand the ground of reality, then a measly 5 senses is utterly pathetic as the only thing to come into being from an absolute infinity.

      There are some reasons why Solipsism is not accurate.

      • #103658
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >spacetime is not real but a product of your mind.
        it’s still real

        • #103672
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Man that’s petty lol. It can be considered real or unreal depending on perspective. If you ask a mystic they will say that a dream is equally real to waking life, as they are speaking from the absolutist sense, where objects mental or "material" are in fact BOTH mental… If you hallucinate or imagine Santa Claus, you cannot say that the apparition of Santa did not exist. No element of existence can be outside of existence so you could say it is real.

          Now if you speak from the view of these humans we see the world through, then the rock that is thrown at my head while awake is entirely real while a dream rock is not.

          Yes this is important because the self mind is inside spacetime just like when you have a dream you find yourself in some kind of illusory spacetime place. Awareness is not inside spacetime and isn’t a thing… A Solipsist is still facing the actuality that space and time is illusory and that all things are in fact singular appearing as multiple like a dream, and so all people and even their own body is fake. The ground of being does not for them or an Idealist lie anywhere inside spacetime.

    • #103659
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >faith
      Not math or science.

    • #103676
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I’ve never understood why Christcucks set up these traditional epistemological problems for science types to solve, when the problems undermine Christcuckoldry at least as much as, if not more than, science.

      • #103681
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The problems that undermine science have to do mostly with empiricism. Religion is immune to that for fairly self-explanatory reasons.

    • #103678
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Well, this completely devolved into strawmans merely 3 posts in. Gotta be a new record.

    • #103679
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      geocentrism, paleontology and evolution are three spheres of science which were all started by deeply religious christians. there is nothing comparable that has been developed by any atheists. atheists, because of their lack of faith, are fundamentally dishonest, they cannot effectively participate in the sciences.

      • #103830
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >geocentrism, paleontology and evolution are three spheres of science which were all started by right handed people. there is nothing comparable that has been developed by any left handed people. Left handed people, because of their lack of right handedness, are fundamentally dishonest, they cannot effectively participate in the sciences.

    • #103680
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Is there a scientific argument against solipsism?
      Against?
      That is not how the scientific method works, if you have a hypothesis, you need evidence to support it, so what evidence do you have to create a model of solipsism over say relativity and/or quantum physics.

    • #103684
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      >Christgarden gnomes are dropping like flies.
      No, if you look into the numbers, the number of people who profess faith in God and Jesus has increased, its only the large international traditional tithe collecting religious groups that are losing numbers.

    • #103688
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Is there a scientific argument against solipsism?

      As scientific as one can get talking philosophy Occam’s razor comes to mind, solipsism fails to explain anything at all
      and only adds even more weirdness to the reality we experience.

      Instead of assuming that what we see is the actual reality solipsism just tacks on another layer to reality that fail to explain anything.
      Solipsism and god(s) run into much of the same set of problems if you start examining the idea thoroughly.

      If you can’t debunk solipsism to a satisfactory degree you have to recognize the plethora of other ideas you also have to lend equal credence.
      If you believe in solipsism by the same logic you also oughta believe in Descarte’s Demon,reality as a simulation, the Matrix etc.
      All of those things have a hell of a lot more going for them than a desert saga about some shrub pyromancer that have strong opinions about your bedroom activities.
      Only way you arrive at christianity at the end of that road using anything resembling logic is by being fraudulently dishonest with yourself.

      • #103691
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >If you believe in solipsism by the same logic you also oughta believe in Descarte’s Demon,reality as a simulation, the Matrix etc.
        Why?

        • #103697
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Those things all rely on the fact that observed and measured reality is not real given the observations are not accurate, so there must some other deeper unobservable reality in control pulling the wool over your eyes.

          • #103700
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Incoherent word salad. Please try again to explain why believing that only one’s own mind can be known to exist, leads to the conclusion that all the other wank you came up with deserves consideration. (Protip: you can’t)

            • #103709
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Wrong, you have never observed solipsism and you even had to be taught the word proving you are not in charge of its definition, someone else was.

              • #103715
                Anonymous
                Guest

                More mentally ill rhetorical vomit. Still no attempt to address the point.

                • #103727
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  The point is you have no evidence or model of a solipsistic universe that matches this one or predicts anything about while the relative universe is much more clearly understood and scientifically/mathematically modeled.

                  Basically all your math can prove is that 0=0, while the rest of the math in the universe that point to separate units and quanta must be ignored for you to validate your theory.

                  • #103729
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >you have no evidence or model of a solipsistic universe
                    Why do I need evidence for it?

                    • #103731
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      You are competing with models that do have evidence and proof and you are in a science thread where proof is exactly what OP is searching for.

                      Hell you are the solipsist so according to your theory, this stuff

                      Incoherent word salad. Please try again to explain why believing that only one’s own mind can be known to exist, leads to the conclusion that all the other wank you came up with deserves consideration. (Protip: you can’t)

                      More mentally ill rhetorical vomit. Still no attempt to address the point.

                      should make perfect sense to you given you are the one who came up with it in the first place.

                      • #103732
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >You are competing with models
                        In what conceivable manner?

                      • #103733
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Relativity and Quantum Physics model and predict reality much better than anything produced by solipsism.

                      • #103734
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Why would solipsism try to predict anything? Are you people seriously braindamaged? The degree if your misunderstanding is off the charts…

                      • #103737
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Why would solipsism try to predict anything?
                        I like to try to successfully predict things, if you don’t, you are obviously a different person.

                      • #103738
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >I like to try to successfully predict things
                        That’s nice, but what does it have to do with anything? The thread is about refuting solipsism. "B-b-b-but it doesn’t predict anything" is not a refutation.

                      • #103739
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >That’s nice, but what does it have to do with anything?
                        It proves we are two different minds because we have different sets of preferences, expectations, and everything else including DNA.

                      • #103741
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >It proves we are two different minds
                        No, it doesn’t… Sometimes I honestly can’t believe the likes of you are real people. There’s just something so off about you.

                      • #103744
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >No, it doesn’t…
                        It does to me, so we must be two different minds with two separate sets of experience and ideals if we have completely different opinions and expectations.

                      • #103748
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >we must be two different minds with two separate sets of experience
                        That doesn’t follow. I can dream people that spew nonsense.

                      • #103755
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Prove it, show me, if we are the same dream.

                      • #103761
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Prove it
                        Why do I need to prove it to you?

                      • #103764
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        You should be able to prove anything to anyone if you are the only mind in control of reality.

                      • #103769
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >You should be able to prove anything to anyone if you are the only mind in control of reality.
                        Who said my mind is in control of "reality"? Anon, you might just be an actual, clinical imbecile.

                      • #103776
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Who said my mind is in control of "reality"?
                        You when you implied everything in reality was your dream because of solipsism.

                      • #103778
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >You when you implied everything in reality was your dream because of solipsism.
                        You really need to take your pills ASAP. You’re hallucinating events that never happened.

                      • #103781
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        see

                        >we must be two different minds with two separate sets of experience
                        That doesn’t follow. I can dream people that spew nonsense.

                        It happened and you would understand it exactly as I do if we were the same mind.

                      • #103782
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        No part of that post implies that my mind controls reality, or even that reality is a dream.

                      • #103783
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Good, that must mean that you don’t think I was spewing nonsense, you don’t think you can dream other people, and you completely agree solipsism is false now.

                      • #103784
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        You are absolutely spewing nonsense, and I genuinely doubt your humanity.

                      • #103785
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Nothing should be nonsense to a solipsist since they came up with it all and all the context around it, so thanks again for admitting there are definitely many different minds contributing to this thread.

                      • #103786
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        More incoherent nonhuman drivel.

                      • #103787
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        More disproving solipsism.
                        We have everything we need, we don’t need more proof we are not of the same mind, you have thoroughly debunked the scrotebrained idea already, thanks.

                      • #103788
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        You are literally incapable of writing a single post that isn’t a nonsequitur. You clearly don’t understand the conversation, probably because you don’t have a mind. Guess we can call it a day.

                      • #103789
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >You clearly don’t understand the conversation,
                        But you do?
                        If so that is just more proof we are of a different mind.
                        If not, so what who cares about the opinion of someone who admits they don’t understand the conversation.

                        Do you understand this conversation of not?

                      • #103792
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >

                      • #103793
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Your sudden loss for words comes across as a definite not because someone who understood the conversation wouldn’t suddenly drop out of the conversation with a cute little emoji.

        • #103706
          Anonymous
          Guest

          All those things stipulate that you are subject to perfect deception by something outside of your experience.
          From your vantage point either of those things would appear exactly the same.

          • #103721
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >From your vantage point either of those things would appear exactly the same.
            That’s nice, but where does it say that I have to consider, let alone believe them all?

            • #103735
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >That’s nice, but where does it say that I have to consider, let alone believe them all?

              Nobody can disprove any of them. So if being unable to disprove a belief is enough for you to entertain the idea it’s real
              Then all those ideas listed must have equal merit as a candidate for what’s actually real, so why not believe in all of them and just the particular one you want?

              At this point LULZ minded people reject all these ideas into the recycle bin as a set of cute thought experiments.
              Only if you have a seriously religious bend in your BS-testing algorithm can you cherrypick the idea with the flavor you prefer and remain happy with it.
              To the rest it’s just too dishonest.

              • #103736
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >if being unable to disprove a belief is enough for you to entertain the idea it’s real
                Only pop-sci drones like you are unable to entertain ideas, but where does it say you have to seriously consider them, let alone believe them?

                • #103743
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >but where does it say you have to seriously consider them, let alone believe them?

                  Because if you subscribe to logic you will shape your beliefs about any situation such that your believes match the evidence presented.
                  If there is equal evidence that neither of 12 people accused is the real killer do we convict all? do we acquit all?

                  Or do you point to one of them and go "this one I don’t like, let’s pretend this one is the killer!" and then we just hang that guy.

                  Last option doesn’t seem very honest right?

                  • #103745
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >Because if you subscribe to logic you will shape your beliefs about any situation such that your believes match the evidence presented.
                    What do you think the underlying logic in our case is? I just want to understand why your brain malfunctions at this point…

                    • #103752
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Scroll up and read anon. You are no longer making any sense. You’re talking to too many people and just flailing in every which direction, you’ve lost the thread.

    • #103740
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Well, both solipsism and religion go "IT ‘S NOT DISPROVABLE BY DEFINITION NYAH NYAH" so what am I supposed to do here? Anytjing I can say goes against the premise of the argument. It’s like asking me to prove an orange isn’t a fruit.
      To me, that’s arguing in bad faith, but if making your argument uncounterable is what you need to feel smart, like you have reached some forbidden insight, you do you.
      So you win, solipsism can be right and everything could be a trick of perception, there could be a Fod despite no evidence of divine intervention either, and the galaxies out there are really made of unicorn farts.
      Nice post OP, very scientific.

      • #103742
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I mean, you do mock religitards for basing their worldviews on unprovable assumptions. Then you go ahead and base your science on one.

        • #103746
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Relativity, DNA, and quantum mechanics are not just assumptions, they are woke af on precise mathematical models and they aren’t unprovable either, they are definitely falsifiable if you find evidence that runs contrary to all the physical models and their predictions.

          • #103750
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >DNA, and quantum mechanics are not just assumptions
            They are, on every single level, all the way down to the level of the solipsist argument.

            • #103758
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Only for someone who doesn’t understand what assumption means.

              • #103767
                Anonymous
                Guest

                If it’s not an assumption, surely, you should be able to refute solipsism.

                • #103774
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  I have, you just don’t understand it because you are a different person from me with a different understand of different words because everyone is different.

        • #103772
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Then you go ahead and base your science on one.
          Which one? I don’t think I made any "scientific assumption" in my post (neither I mocked "religitards" specifically)

          • #103780
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Which one?
            That the stuff you’re studying actually exists and unwaveringly follow consistent laws, for example.

            • #103794
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Well, in most cases, this is a pretty safe assumption to make
              If I lift an object up in the air and let go of it, it will fall
              Assuming controlled, equivalent conditions, it will always fall at the same speed, it will not fall upwards or stay in place or fall twice as fast
              The Earth has been orbiting the Sun for billions of years, and the Sun has been fusing energy and warming us, and that’s been pretty consistent too, though the exact details might be difficult to predict
              Science is useful that way, once you have a model, you can make predictions, and once your predictions have been confirmed hundreds and thousands of time, you have something solid
              What’s the alternative? Stop driving cars because the laws of combustion might change and they might stop burning fuel from one moment to the next?
              Not very useful, and not very likely either since it never happened

              • #103795
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >this is a pretty safe assumption to make
                How do you know? Your post just reiterates the assumption instead of justifying it.

                • #103796
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  The assumptions have seemingly paid off for generations at the very least my entire life experience how has you assuming you are the only person every paid off?

                  • #103797
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >The assumptions have seemingly paid off for generations
                    Doesn’t mean they’re not gonna break next time you rely on them. They’re ARE assumptions, and you can’t prove that they’re gonna hold.

                    • #103801
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >They’re ARE assumptions,
                      No there were assumption when they were originally made, then they became hypothesis that got backed up by generations of consistent evidence that lead to them being scientific theories.

                      Are you honestly willing to bet your life savings that the sun won’t rise and set again today?

                      • #103806
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >they became hypothesis that got backed up by generations of consistent evidence that lead to them being scientific theories.
                        Circular reasoning, because that whole shtick relies on the assumptions being true in the first place.

                      • #103809
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >relies on the assumptions being true in the first place.
                        No, not relying on an assumption, but actively demonstrating and documenting, millions of times before promoting an assumption to a theory.

                      • #103812
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        You are mentally ill. Please take your meds.

                      • #103814
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        You are me, though, remember Mr. Solipsism, so if you want me on meds, you just have to take them yourself.

                      • #103815
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Please forgive me the horror we both know you will make me put you through.

                      • #103817
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I know, if you get on meds to eliminate mental illness, your entire personality goes away piecewise and the greatest horror many imagine is that type of utter obliteration and annihilation.

                      • #103820
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Great art so often fails to find an audience with the intellect to appreciate it. Sometimes I am filled with woe to think that no one in this blighted millennium has the wit to see the scope of my brilliance.

                      • #103825
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >no one in this blighted millennium has the wit to see the scope of my brilliance.
                        >my brilliance
                        Present them.

                      • #103838
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Your presence does not surprise me Assassin. I have known of you since your craft entered the Eastern Fringes. Why did I not have you killed? Because your mission and the act you are about to commit proves the truth of all I have ever said or done. I merely punished those who had wronged, just as your false Emperor now seeks to punish me. Death is nothing compared to vindication.

                      • #103843
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        ok schizo

                      • #103848
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Chaos cannot be turned against Chaos, proud Relictor. You are less a heretic than an imbecile if you believe that. The Dark Powers know your desire to use their sacrilegious tools; they exploit and manipulate it for their own ends – even in the loyal subjects of the Imperium.

                      • #103849
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >seething this freaking hard because you can’t refute solipsism

                      • #103850
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        That which we foolishly call truth is only a small island in a vast sea of the unknown.
                        For man to truly flourish, he must be willing to abandon the ever-shrinking island of such petty "truth" and surrender himself to the reality of that which is beyond.

                      • #103851
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Keep seething. You’re still a mouth breather and solipsism still stands.

                      • #103852
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I have taken great pains not to laugh at the actions of aliens, nor to weep at them or to hate them, but to understand them.

                      • #103819
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >When the teenager runs out of arguments

                • #103798
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  See, that’s why I said earlier that you already won
                  You know what, let’s make it real scien tific. You seek to disprove, so burden of proof is on you. Let’s test gravity: go throw an object from a building until it stops falling or until you get bored, record it, and let’see how long it takes for the law to change.

    • #103800
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Since solipsism seems to checkmate absolutely "everybody", doesn’t that mean its true? The only reason people would reject it is if they’re afraid

    • #103808
      Anonymous
      Guest

      well i could say the universe was made last thursday, and there’d be no way to prove me wrong either. but also no way to prove me right. same with solipsism, and, in my opinion, same with any gods. what’s your point exactly?

    • #103816
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >i know the pattern will always hold because it has held so far, which means i can promote it to a "theory", because patterns that hold for this long, always hold, which i know is true because that pattern has held so far
      They’re not human.

      • #103821
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >I know the pattern will break even though it has never broken so far, which means i can promote it to "my entire worldview", because patterns that have never broken for this long, must eventually break, which i know is true because reasons.

        • #103822
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >I know the pattern will break
          Who are you quoting, schizo?

          • #103823
            Anonymous
            Guest

            The person who bases their entire scrotebrained contrarian worldview on something that has never happen because they think it probably should happen.

            • #103826
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >something that has never happen
              What would that "something" be?

              • #103827
                Anonymous
                Guest

                The patterns that have been promoted to scientific theory through generations of observation (like DNA, relativity, and quantum physics) why do I have to tell a solipsist to keep up with the conversation when they are supposedly the one who created it all?

                • #103828
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >The patterns that have been promoted to scientific theory
                  That’s something that has never happened?

                  • #103831
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    *breaking the patterns that have been promoted to scientific theory

                    • #103833
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Scientific theories have never been proven wrong?

                      • #103834
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Not the currently accepted ones especially the ones I mentioned, but if they do get broken they get dropped as a scientific theory and become pseudoscience.

                      • #103836
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Oh, so we do have examples of muh sacred, immutable scientific patterns turning out to be false?

          • #103824
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Mankind’s stoicism in the face of suffering is founded upon its ignorance of the alternatives.

    • #103818
      Anonymous
      Guest

      We are less than cattle to these beings, chattel to be cast aside, consumed or made sport with for their pleasure. There is not one amongst them that would pay heed to a world of Man as I would to an ant on my boot.

    • #103832
      Anonymous
      Guest

      There is no way to disprove solipsism.
      The argument "we are different minds because we think different things" doesn’t work. The other person’s mind could just be another projection within the simulation that exists in your mind, which is the only true mind that exists. Every piece of scientific evidence, every piece of logic etc., is just another part of the hallucination/simulation that only exists inside one mind.
      The whole point of solipsism is saying that the entirety of everything is just a hallucination that exists inside one mind. There is no way to disprove this, you have to simply accept that it isn’t true on faith and then go forward. Which in my opinion is a perfectly fine faith to have.

      • #103835
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >The whole point of solipsism is saying that the entirety of everything is just a hallucination that exists inside one mind.
        No. The entire point of solipsism is that it COULD be that way, and you wouldn’t know better, because there is fundamentally no way to know better.

        • #103837
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Sure, but that doesn’t change anything.
          If solipsism were true (which is possible) then you can not even in principle use any piece of scientific evidence or any logical/mathematical argument to disprove it, because every piece of evidence is just another slice of the hallucination that only exists inside that one mind.
          you HAVE TO simply have faith that solipsism isn’t true. There is no logical or scientific argument that one could give to disprove this idea even in principle. So I think it’s fine to have faith that solipsism isn’t true.

          • #103839
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >If solipsism were true
            Solipsism is true.

    • #103840
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Solipsism and problem of induction aren’t the same thing.

      • #103841
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Who said they are the same thing?

        • #103842
          Anonymous
          Guest

          In this thread people are arguing against the problem of induction as though it’s an argument against solipsism.
          The idea of being able to conclude that the sun will rise every day because of scientific consistency has nothing to do with solipsism, it’s about whether inductive reasoning works.
          It can be true that multiple minds exist (i.e. not solipsism) but that induction isn’t true (i.e. that science and the scientific method are false). Solipsism could also be true (there exists only one mind) and induction could also be true (the hallucination of that one mind is consistent).

          The one anon is attempting to argue against solipsism by somehow trying to bridge the induction gap? It shows an error in the understanding of what these philosophies actually are and what they say.

Viewing 20 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
startno id