Solipsism: why all of you don't really exist

[Sjoerd]

Hello all,

This thread brought up the topic of solipsism, the idea that nothing in the world exists except you, that everything and everyone else is something in your head, and that attributing to these things a "real" external existence outside of your mind is unfounded speculation.

FinalEnigma challenged me to prove, to his satisfaction, that he does not exist. For the record, I am not really a fan of solipsism. I think that it is a valid but empty philosophical stance. Nevertheless, I will try to defend it and to convince FinalEnigma that he indeed does not exist.

First of all, I note that I am being subject to a constant stream of sensory input. This input is not random, but appears to be organized in patterns. I have set myself the goal to explain these patterns as simply as possible, using the principle of Occam's Razor.
I recognize that sensory input seems to originate from certain objects, let's call them agents. These agents seem to behave in a more or less predictable manner. For example, agents that give the sensation of being tangible are also visible, and agents that are small are usually also being light, and able to be picked up. Picked up objects can be dropped, which gives rise to the sensation of a falling object.

Now, there seems to be a special class of agents called "humans". I, Sjoerd, am of course the only thing of which I can be sure that it exists. "Agents" are just a convenient concept to explain and predict some of my sensations, however, these "humans" can usually be explained and predicted by assuming that they would respond as I would if I received the sensations that they seem to receive. However, it would be mere conjecture and speculation that these humans do really exist outside of my mind. Like my image in the mirror, they merely emulate some of my properties.
But now something special has happened. One of these agents, called FinalEnigma, has sent me input corresponding to a request to prove, to his satisfaction, that he does not exist. Therefore, this goal would be met if I send an output that causes FinalEnigma to send a second input, expressing his satisfaction.

Now I have a problem. I can assume that FinalEnigma is a so-called "human" agent who understands English. Or at least, whose response to my input is consistent with those properties. Normally, I can assume that he would be sensitive to similar input as I would be. However, if he truly emulates me, he would also emulate my experience that I really exist, but then mapped onto himself. However, then no input from my side would cause him to emit "satisfaction" to me, since my certainty of my own existence is absolute, and so would his emulated certainty be. However, since he emulates my being, he also emulates me in noting the concept that there are "human" agents similar to himself. He even recognizes me as one of these "human" agents. Therefore, all I have to do is convince him that although from *my* perspective, *he* does not (necessarily) exist, my perspective is nothing but an emulation of his viewpoint. If, by emulation, *he* comes to the conclusion that *I* do not (necessarily) exist, and my identity is an emulation of his own, my point will be proven.

So, FinalEnigma, let's face it. There are certain phenomena associated with an agent called "Sjoerd". You can choose to explain only the known phenomena, or to assume the existence additional hidden phenomena, such as an existence of "Sjoerd" or properties of "Sjoerd" outside your mind. According to Occam's Razor, it is best to assume as little properties as possible. Moreover, properties outside your mind are by definition unknowable: as soon as they become known, they would enter your mind so they would no longer be outside your mind. Therefore, it would be in direct violation of Occam's Razor for you to assume that I exist outside your mind. Everything that you know about me you can explain with the properties of me that are in your mind, and nothing else is needed.

Therefore, I do not exist. Since I emulate you, you must admit that it is a perfectly reasonable stance for me to assume that you do not exist. Of course, I am only a stupid mind fragment, a voice in your head, but how am I to know?

Sjoerd

[Nameless]

Sure, but we are discussing external existence here.

Ohhh, 'external existence'. Like a 'FSM'? Or 'unicorns'?

To use the old philosopher's question: Does a falling tree in a forest make any sound if there is no one to hear it? If the answer is no, then the sound does not exist outside the observer's mind.

Nothing has ever been evidenced to 'exist' outside the Mind of the Observer. No 'observation/awareness' = no existence. If you are not aware of something (at the moment), it does not exist in your universe (of that moment).

There are those whose definition of sound is a physical definition of a standing pressure wave... blah, blah... For those who equate 'sound' with 'hearing', then yes, the simple physics of it is that there is a 'pressure wave' created by the tree's impact on other items (trees, ground, rocks). These waves are absolutely silent. When the 'wave' impacts an eardrum, the subsequent vibrations are carried to the brain as chemico-electric signals. The brain then analyzes this 'data' and forms an auditory concept and hologramic 'audible' image, that which we 'hear' (perceive) as 'sound'.
So, yes, the 'sound' exists nowhere else but as a hologramic construct of Mind.

External existence? Is there some sort of magic 'dividing line' between anything in the momentary universe? Even 'classical physics' cannot find any definitive place where one thing leaves off and another begins! What seperates you from being One with the universe at this moment?
Look at the Tapestry (not movie) of Existence (universes) at any one moment.
It is Complete, One. 'In here' and 'out there' become meaningless, from 'this' Perspective.
It is (limited) Perspective only that 'sees' division within the 'whole'.
Actually, as the 'whole' has no (inherent) divisions, the 'undifferentiated potential' of 'mind, the 'perfect symmetry' of Mind cannot be 'known'. It is only by us Perspectives, with our necessarily incomplete 'view' (of Mind) that there can be any 'manifestation' of existence.
Existence exists 'because' we Perceive it, and along with the arisal of existence, so the arisal of the body, one and the same as the perceived existence, Perceiver and Perceived One!
We imagine an 'out there' from the perspective of ego (and some crappy 'western' philosophers) and some brain biology...
It is only by (us) Perspectives can the 'undifferentiated potential' of Mind become, momentarily, 'differentiated'. All 'potentialities' brought into existence, every possibility, by each of us, every moment another universes.
We are Consciousness' 'enlightenment', Consciousness' ability to 'know' Mind.
From another Perspective, we (One and the same as all existence ever) are God's (momentary) Enlightenment!
Hmmm,
Peace

[Sjoerd]

So, yes, the 'sound' exists nowhere else but as a hologramic construct of Mind.
All Perspectives (us, universes, moments) of Mind.

Hey, take it easy on the mushrooms, man

You seem to be arguing that all borders between self and non-self are basically an illusion. While I, personally, in principle agree with this position, this would render the question at hand meaningless. So, for the sake of argument, please keep the apparent boundaries between agents and objects intact.

Taking your own mind as a reference point, would you consider that your sensations may not reflect any external universe, but are merely generated by your mind, not unlike a dream?

[Nameless]

So, yes, the 'sound' exists nowhere else but as a hologramic construct of Mind.
All Perspectives (us, universes, moments) of Mind.

Hey, take it easy on the mushrooms, man

Cute. Like I haven't heard that one before... (yawns) *__-

You seem to be arguing that all borders between self and non-self are basically an illusion. While I, personally, in principle agree with this position, this would render the question at hand meaningless. So, for the sake of argument, please keep the apparent boundaries between agents and objects intact.

no problem, but then there is no place for this Perspective in your 'discussion'.

Taking your own mind as a reference point, would you consider that your sensations may not reflect any external universe, but are merely generated by your mind, not unlike a dream?

"My own mind" is as much an integral part of a universe as Jupiter. How can it be used as a 'reference point' for anything? For 'whom'?
I see Mind.
What 'appears' to be 'my' mind, is just a trick of the 'eyes' (ego).
There is Mind, and I am a Perspective of Consciousness on/of that Mind. This is the manifestation of universes, every moment. One and the same as that momentary universe.
We exist.
And we do not.
It's a matter of Perspective.

[Sjoerd]

I am doing a final attempt to revive this thread. Up to now, FinalEnigma and Beto have not convinced me that solipsism is an invalid or even implausible philosophy. I have not convinced them of the opposite, either. As far as I can see, I have refuted all arguments in post #28. So, solipsism still stands as a plausible philosophy.

As for the claim of parsimony, there is a serious objection raised by Beto. In #26 I admitted that this indeed a problem, and that I may have to drop the claim of parsimony.

Who does not agree with this summary? Go ahead and make your argument!