Qualia, Solipsism and Contextualism - Defence

[Aetixintro]

So let's assume that the impression of nature, of beauty, of colours have qualia to them in such a fashion that context of them in the brain, in the soul (that I think exists) makes them special to the person in space and time by the unique experiences they make in a person's mentality. This creates a special kind of solipsism as well such that the true magnificence of experiences overall has this subtle, non-investigative quality of person that is firmly set by context, a contextualism in the brain, in the soul. Sure, overt feelings are now fairly easy to determine by for example fMRI and other. But this is not the issue, it is the depth of contextuality in the mind that makes those other qualities of feelings inaccessible overall because they are impossible to describe and impossible to entirely investigate.

The mystery of the World, one type of religious experience, "God's temple" in us in the grand World, much stronger too with the enhancement of science and questions over existence. So I say that to live is to have qualia, solipsism and contextualism in this fashion, the imprint on each and every one by the World as a whole!

So: Do you agree with my account of Qualia, Solipsism and Contextualism?

Note: One account of Qualia can be found in Philosophy of Mind, 2nd ed. by Jaegwon Kim, chapter 8, for instance.

[Divine Insight]

So: Do you agree with my account of Qualia, Solipsism and Contextualism?

I really can't have a meaningful understanding of your "account" of theses concepts from the short post you have made. And this actually has a lot to do with Contextualism, because your "account" of these concepts is not doubt influenced a great deal by the very way in which you have contexutualized these ideals. And this includes both in your perception of the what you believe these concepts to refer to as well as in your subjective understanding of how you consider these concepts to be defined.

So in this sense there is a lot of Solipsism involved. (i.e. the individual perception of what we consider to be the experiences of our reality).

Having said the above, I would like to point out also that Solipsism itself is a concept of "subjective isolation". In other words, solipsism is the general idea that only the individual exists, and that all other individuals are just a creation of the single individual that does exist.

Since I personally reject solipsism as a likely candidate for a true description of reality, I must then allow that all individuals are equally valid. This then tosses a wrench in what appears to be your "account" of the above.

This is to say that our very own personal experiences are then influenced by other individuals which would be beyond the scope of Solipsism.

I think this is especially true when we are small children encountering experiences for the very first time. How the people around us react to various phenomena will no doubt have an influence on how we might form our initial reaction to the very same experiences.

For this reason (assuming we actually rule out Solipsism proper) we cannot be said to be the sole authors of how we perceive and ultimately process and view our experiences of various phenomena and interactions with the rest of the world.

In short, ruling out Solipsism proper, we cannot be said to be the sole authors of our own experiences.

You say:

So I say that to live is to have qualia, solipsism and contextualism in this fashion, the imprint on each and every one by the World as a whole!

What I don't understand is why you bring the concept of solipsism into this?

From the Merriam Webster dictionary:

Definition of solipsism. : a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing;

Notice the important part I have underlined in the above definition.

Solipsism doesn't really allow for other independent individuals who process qualia in their own subjective ways. And how those individuals perceive and react to qualia will then influence how we, as individuals, process, react, and view the same experiences.

So unless you are speaking entirely on a philosophy based on Solipsism (i.e. only you exist and everyone else is a fabrication of your own personal subjective imagination) I don't see how your ideas here could have any meaning or relation to a world where all individuals are having unique individual experiences.

Solipsism assumes that you are all that exists. Are you aware of that?

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

I have used a special definition of Solipsism. One that I describe to some extent in my text. I certainly do not use solipsism in the sense that only the subjective person exists as you ascribe to me above in a kind of strawman sense.

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (1995), edited by Robert Audi, says:

solipsism, the doctrine that there exists a first-person perspective possessing privileged and irreducible characteristics, in virtue of which we stand in various kinds of isolation from any other persons or external things that may exist. This doctrine is associated with but distinct from egocentricism.

You seem to say that I write from a view of ontological solipsism or epistemological solipsism which I do not!

Note: Let me write that I use Solipsism in the Contextual Solipsism sense!

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

I have used a special definition of Solipsism. One that I describe to some extent in my text. I certainly do not use solipsism in the sense that only the subjective person exists as you ascribe to me above in a kind of strawman sense.

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (1995), edited by Robert Audi, says:

solipsism, the doctrine that there exists a first-person perspective possessing privileged and irreducible characteristics, in virtue of which we stand in various kinds of isolation from any other persons or external things that may exist. This doctrine is associated with but distinct from egocentricism.

You seem to say that I write from a view of ontological solipsism or epistemological solipsism which I do not!

Note: Let me write that I use Solipsism in the Contextual Solipsism sense!

“When I use a word,� Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.� “The question is,� said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.� “The question is,� said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.�
-- LEWIS CARROLL (Charles L. Dodgson), Through the Looking-Glass, chapter 6, p. 205 (1934). First published in 1872.

http://www.bartleby.com/73/2019.html

I can well believe in a "solipsistic philosopher", chopping unpremised logic and splitting reified hairs; indeed, the phrase is almost redundant. But then, Mr. Aetixintro, you would be only a figment of my imagination.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

I have used a special definition of Solipsism. One that I describe to some extent in my text. I certainly do not use solipsism in the sense that only the subjective person exists as you ascribe to me above in a kind of strawman sense.

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (1995), edited by Robert Audi, says:

solipsism, the doctrine that there exists a first-person perspective possessing privileged and irreducible characteristics, in virtue of which we stand in various kinds of isolation from any other persons or external things that may exist. This doctrine is associated with but distinct from egocentricism.

You seem to say that I write from a view of ontological solipsism or epistemological solipsism which I do not!

Note: Let me write that I use Solipsism in the Contextual Solipsism sense!

I agree with Divine Insight that you are introducing confusion by misusing the word solipsism. If you replaced it with the word perspective or even context, it would communicate what you're trying to say better. If solipsism were the case, everyone in his universe would be a figment of his imagination. And there could be no interacting overlap of multiple solipsists since reality would be the chaotic melding of all those subjective perceptions.

What you appear to be doing is trying to rationalize multiple, subjective individual realities. But there must be an underlying objective reality on which our subjective, often distorted, perceptions are based. But it turns out the moon is always there, following natural law, even when no one is looking at it--and has been since before any living thing ever felt it's gravity.

[shnarkle]

So let's assume that the impression of nature, of beauty, of colours have qualia to them in such a fashion that context of them in the brain, in the soul (that I think exists) makes them special to the person in space and time by the unique experiences they make in a person's mentality. This creates a special kind of solipsism as well such that the true magnificence of experiences overall has this subtle, non-investigative quality of person that is firmly set by context, a contextualism in the brain, in the soul. Sure, overt feelings are now fairly easy to determine by for example fMRI and other. But this is not the issue, it is the depth of contextuality in the mind that makes those other qualities of feelings inaccessible overall because they are impossible to describe and impossible to entirely investigate.

The mystery of the World, one type of religious experience, "God's temple" in us in the grand World, much stronger too with the enhancement of science and questions over existence. So I say that to live is to have qualia, solipsism and contextualism in this fashion, the imprint on each and every one by the World as a whole!

So: Do you agree with my account of Qualia, Solipsism and Contextualism?

Note: One account of Qualia can be found in Philosophy of Mind, 2nd ed. by Jaegwon Kim, chapter 8, for instance.

I agree that you have presented an accurate account of Qualia, Solipsism and Contextualism. I don't agree that it is an effective way to mediate reality. What it effectively does is to hide reality. External reality is hidden from you by this Qualia, Solipsissm and Context, and the internal reflection is also hidden from the external reality. When internal reality and external reality have no relationship to each other the result is confusion.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 6 by shnarkle]

Mind you, qualia is part of philosophy of mind and represents just one aspect (description) of who we are. I agree, it doesn't instruct us on science like that. Rather, I have made an extended description on qualia and on the limitation of inquiry on the mind which is really a classical thing with qualia.

So: No big news, just a text I've wanted to share under the philosophy label here at Debating Christianity. I've seen this opportunity by sneaking in "religious experience" and "God's temple".