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

[Sjoerd]

Let me once again state the point of this thread.

I am going to defend solipsism, which means from my point of view that *you* are all voices in my mind and that your existence outside of my mind is merely speculation. From your point of view, solipsism means that *I* am only a voice in your head. Of course, from my point of view there *is* no "your point of view", but as I explained, I will assume that your virtual input/output behavior is similar to my own, and I will assume that you will make the same assumption about myself. Therefore, my goal is to let you conclude that *I* do not exist, and therefore, to let you conclude that from my viewpoint, I can conclude that you do not exist.

Let me also state again that I am defending an "agnostic" solipsism: I will not be able to prove that all others do not exist. In contrast, others may or may not exist, however it is more parsimonious to preliminary conclude that you do not exist.

can you show that your(or my) mind is capable of imagining and perfectly remembering a world as intricate as the one that we seem to see, but only unconsciously, as we cannot actively imagine such as complicated and intricate world. and that we somehow remember everything in the universe well enough to rediscover it as being the same as it was previously, while actually forgetting it at the same time?

Yes, this happens every night in your sleep! There are certain err... chemicals that are rumored to have a stimulating effect, too.
Note that the only part of the world that has to be imagined is the part that is observed or remembered. The existence of any part of the universe beyond observation or beyond memory is as speculative as the existence of any part of the universe outside your mind. It is perfectly possible that the universe is created at the moment you see it. The only reason why it seems familiar is that your memories are also created at that moment. Of course, it doesn't need to be that way, but again, the existence of a memory before it is remembered is metaphysical speculation.

Look at the room around you. there are probably hundreds of objects in that room. if everything is in your mind rather than being actually there you should be able to close your eyes and dream up another room that is just as complicated and intricate as the one you are currently in and hold this image of another room in your mind for hours at a time. why can't you?

Look at your body. It's yours. No one else is in there, no one else is controlling it. So in principle, you should be able to control the muscles in your intestines, to fine-tune the synthesis of metabolic enzymes, or even to stop your own heart... assuming that you have total voluntary control over your body. But you don't. Likewise, you don't have total voluntary control over your mind, either. So "dreaming up" another room or another universe just doesn't work.

Another issue- for your proposition to be true, you(or I) would have to be enormously more intelligent and mentally capable than we appear to be. if we are so capable, then why doesn't our capability manifest except to create this incredibly intricate and complex universe that we appear to be a part of?

I think that I answered that above. Our *conscious* mind isn't particularly intelligent or metally capable, but it doesn't have to be.

I think you are misapplying Occam's Razor. we are attempting to explain a phenomena-these sensations that we recieve.

phenomena-we recieve myriad of sensations from various sources all linked together and sorted to appear to create a universe before us.

Explanation one-There is a universe before us, and our senses allow us to perceive it.

Explanation two- There really isn't a universe before us, we just think there is because we are imagining it.

I think I explained that one before. "Agnostic" solipsism does not mean choosing for explanation 2: it means to state that there is no evidence for either explanation.
And let me repeat, we do not observe the whole universe. When you look outside your window, you can see the tree standing in your garden. You know that it is real when you look, at least the tree-like visual sensation you experience is real. What you don't know is whether there is any tree when you don't look at it. It is consistent in the sense that whenever you look, you see it. It also consistent in the sense that it has other non-visual stimuli associated with it, such as hurting your head when you walk into it with your eyes closed. But that doesn't say anything about the moments that you are not experiencing any of these stimuli. You can speculate about it and assume that the tree is always there and that's why it's consistent, or that the tree does not really exist and that its consistency is a property or your mind, rather than the tree. You are certain of your experiences of a tree. The existence or non-existence of the tree outside your experience is metaphysical speculation. The same is true for me. You are reading my words. If you send me a PM, I will respond. If I also exist the rest of the time, is metaphysical speculation. There is fundamentally not a single way for you to find out.

[FinalEnigma]

can you show that your(or my) mind is capable of imagining and perfectly remembering a world as intricate as the one that we seem to see, but only unconsciously, as we cannot actively imagine such as complicated and intricate world. and that we somehow remember everything in the universe well enough to rediscover it as being the same as it was previously, while actually forgetting it at the same time?

Yes, this happens every night in your sleep! There are certain err... chemicals that are rumored to have a stimulating effect, too.
Note that the only part of the world that has to be imagined is the part that is observed or remembered.

Think I'll have to concede that one. Didn't occur to me for some reason. I even recall having a dream on about that day too.

It is perfectly possible that the universe is created at the moment you see it.

If you presuppose that the universe only exists withing your mind I will grant this one true, but if there is a physical manifestation of the universe that does this you have some explaining to do.

Look at the room around you. there are probably hundreds of objects in that room. if everything is in your mind rather than being actually there you should be able to close your eyes and dream up another room that is just as complicated and intricate as the one you are currently in and hold this image of another room in your mind for hours at a time. why can't you?

Look at your body. It's yours. No one else is in there, no one else is controlling it. So in principle, you should be able to control the muscles in your intestines, to fine-tune the synthesis of metabolic enzymes, or even to stop your own heart... assuming that you have total voluntary control over your body. But you don't. Likewise, you don't have total voluntary control over your mind, either. So "dreaming up" another room or another universe just doesn't work.

I'll argue this one. I have significantly more voluntary control than a lot of people do, though admittedly not absolute. I haven't tried to control the muscles in my intestines or or synthesize metabolic enzymes, nor would I have any way to measure that, but I have slowed my heart to 10 beats per minute and my breathing to one cycle per minute before. I hesitate to go beyond that and actually try to stop my heart I.E. kill myself, however. I also can control blood flow to deliberately heat(increase blood flow to) or cool(deacrease blood flow to) parts of my body(I can stick one hand in slightly warm water and the other in slightly cool water and meditate for a few minutes, then pull them out and the one in the warm water is colder than the one in the cool water)
Now, I can't prove that I can do that, you'll have to take my word for it or throw it out. My brother has seen me do it though.

But there are people who have total voluntary control over their bodies so far as I can tell. some monks for example, are even capable of drinking liquids backwards. I.E. through the anus(control of muscles in intestines)...and no, I haven't tried that one either, nor do I think that there would be a point.

I think you are misapplying Occam's Razor. we are attempting to explain a phenomena-these sensations that we recieve.

phenomena-we recieve myriad of sensations from various sources all linked together and sorted to appear to create a universe before us.

Explanation one-There is a universe before us, and our senses allow us to perceive it.

Explanation two- There really isn't a universe before us, we just think there is because we are imagining it.

I think I explained that one before. "Agnostic" solipsism does not mean choosing for explanation 2: it means to state that there is no evidence for either explanation.

Apologies, Explanation two isn't your position. how about explanation three:

Explanation three- There may or may not be a universe-we do not have any evidence either way, but given that there is no evidence, it is most logical to assume that there is no universe outside our mind and that we are imagining it.

And let me repeat, we do not observe the whole universe. When you look outside your window, you can see the tree standing in your garden. You know that it is real when you look, at least the tree-like visual sensation you experience is real. What you don't know is whether there is any tree when you don't look at it. It is consistent in the sense that whenever you look, you see it. It also consistent in the sense that it has other non-visual stimuli associated with it, such as hurting your head when you walk into it with your eyes closed. But that doesn't say anything about the moments that you are not experiencing any of these stimuli.

You can show that objects remain consistent even when we are not looking at them and that therefore the whole universe must be consistent-which is beyond any demonstrated human capability.

if an artist looks at a tree, then goes inside his house and draws the tree, then returns to look at the tree again, it can perfectly match the drawing.(possible if, in the time that you weren't looking at the tree, your unconscious mind decided that it looked like your drawing and when you went back it wasn't the way it was before, but the way you drew it.) But there is also the possibility that the same artist looks at a tree, goes into his study and draws it, then, with 100% confidence that it is correct, returns to find that he has misplaced a branch.

Confidence cannot be immediately, directly altered by conscious thought-it stems from the unconscious. The only way to alter it consciously would be to repeat messages to yourself to filter them into the unconscious to increase your confidence. what this shows is that your unconscious is confident that you are correct, and if it is your unconscious mind that creates the universe as you stroll through the park to find the tree again, were it convinced that you are correct, you would be.


also, though it probably is my failure to see an application of something you said, did you answer this?

3:why are some people deficient in certain areas of intelligence(such as math) yet somehow capable of simultaneously excelling in all of them to the point where they can create in their imagination things such as higher calculus, great works of literature, foreign languages which are self-consistent e.t.c.-yet incapable of understanding them at the same time?(Brings up the question. can you imagine something that you don't understand? I can't think of an example thereof)

and I'll add a 4th question that occurred to me:
4:how are people capable of holding unconscious thoughts or prejudices that are wrong, when their unconscious mind is what actually creates the universe?


And I really would like to know if someone can come up with an example of imagining something that you do not understand and cannot figure out without someone else explaining it to you.(like a complicated math equation that is far above your head-but I've never imagined such a thing-it had to be shown to me)

By the way, I am really enjoying this debate. Thank you Sjoerd for having it with me.(oh and as a note I just started college classes again today. I have a pretty heavy workload-solid classes from 8-12 mon/wed/fri and 8-6 tue/thurs with lots of homework, so it may take me a long time to respond at times. please bear with me if it does.)(and yes, I am that nuts and I fully intend to pull off straight As.)

[Beto]

To me, it works like this: all I perceive from my senses is my brain's interpretation of external stimuli. I don't actually "see" or "hear" people, I "see" and "hear" interpretations. I know people exist because I'm interpreting something, though how much is like what everyone else perceives, I cannot know. Since people seem to interpret me back, I can be reasonably assured I exist as well. Quid pro quo, I guess.

[FinalEnigma]

To me, it works like this: all I perceive from my senses is my brain's interpretation of external stimuli. I don't actually "see" or "hear" people, I "see" and "hear" interpretations. I know people exist because I'm interpreting something, though how much is like what everyone else perceives, I cannot know. Since people seem to interpret me back, I can be reasonably assured I exist as well. Quid pro quo, I guess.

The problem with that is dreams.

If you were dreaming you would swear you saw and heard interpretations of people-but there wouldn't actually be any people there.

Your argument
1)I see and hear interpretations of people
2)people seem to see and hear interpretations of me
Conclusion) I exist

First the conclusion we are looking for is-
Conclusion) The universe outside of myself does in fact exist and is not my imagination or unconscious

also with your initial argument I can dispute premise one
therefore
1)I see and hear interpretations of people

• You seem to see and hear interpretations of people, when in fact you may actually be in a dream-state where you would see something that is not, in fact, there-but is only in your imagination.

2)people seem to see and hear interpretations of me

• A loss of premise one places into doubt premise two and asks whether the people who are seeming to see and hear interpretations of you actually exist or whether they are fragments of your dream-state. and if they are fragments, then their actions and seeming perceptions have no bearing on the physical universe.

Conclusion) I exist

• Calling premises one and two into doubt causes the conclusion to be placed into doubt as well

I would love to see a trend toward this manner of debate-it's clear, concise, and easily arguable. And most arguments can be placed into this form quite easily.

of course being
Premises:
1) premise
2) premise
3) premise(however many you need)
Conclusion:
1)

A benefit to this is that if your premises are sound, and lead into your conclusion. Its really hard to argue against

[Beto]

So is the question: how do I know I'm not dreaming?

I wonder, having some experience with Wake Induced Lucid Dreaming, how much relevance does the ability to jump back and forth from lucid dreaming to awake have in answering that question, if any?

[Goat]

So is the question: how do I know I'm not dreaming?

I wonder, having some experience with Wake Induced Lucid Dreaming, how much relevance does the ability to jump back and forth from lucid dreaming to awake have in answering that question, if any?

Absolutly none.. because in lucid dreaming you are dreaming you are dreaming.

Reality is an illusion . although a very persistent one.

[Beto]

So is the question: how do I know I'm not dreaming?

I wonder, having some experience with Wake Induced Lucid Dreaming, how much relevance does the ability to jump back and forth from lucid dreaming to awake have in answering that question, if any?

Absolutly none.. because in lucid dreaming you are dreaming you are dreaming.

Reality is an illusion . although a very persistent one.

That doesn't really compute for me. I need a physical brain to dream, one I don't have in a dream, so I cannot "dream in the dream". Does that make sense?

[FinalEnigma]

So is the question: how do I know I'm not dreaming?

I wonder, having some experience with Wake Induced Lucid Dreaming, how much relevance does the ability to jump back and forth from lucid dreaming to awake have in answering that question, if any?

Absolutly none.. because in lucid dreaming you are dreaming you are dreaming.

Reality is an illusion . although a very persistent one.

That doesn't really compute for me. I need a physical brain to dream, one I don't have in a dream, so I cannot "dream in the dream". Does that make sense?

The point is that if the universe is all a dream, then everything we know that is empirical may or may not be true, therefore you might actually not need a brain to be able to dream.

[bernee51]

So is the question: how do I know I'm not dreaming?

I wonder, having some experience with Wake Induced Lucid Dreaming, how much relevance does the ability to jump back and forth from lucid dreaming to awake have in answering that question, if any?

Absolutly none.. because in lucid dreaming you are dreaming you are dreaming.

Reality is an illusion . although a very persistent one.

That doesn't really compute for me. I need a physical brain to dream, one I don't have in a dream, so I cannot "dream in the dream". Does that make sense?

Off topic...

Not quite so. I have had dreams where I dreamt I was dreaming, woken up in the dream to realize it was 'a dream', and them realized my waking up in the dream was also a dream.

[Sjoerd]

By the way, I am really enjoying this debate. Thank you Sjoerd for having it with me.(oh and as a note I just started college classes again today. I have a pretty heavy workload-solid classes from 8-12 mon/wed/fri and 8-6 tue/thurs with lots of homework, so it may take me a long time to respond at times. please bear with me if it does.)(and yes, I am that nuts and I fully intend to pull off straight As.)

I am really enjoying this too! It's nice of you to defend the other side of the debate against goat and Beto, I haven't seen that in any thread on this forum! No problem if you can't respond that often, study goes first of course.

It is perfectly possible that the universe is created at the moment you see it.

If you presuppose that the universe only exists withing your mind I will grant this one true, but if there is a physical manifestation of the universe that does this you have some explaining to do.

True, it seems plausible only if it exists in your mind. To argue that it exists externally but is defined when we observe it would not be very parsimonious, although some Quantum Mechanics experiments seem to be interpretable in that way.

['ll argue this one. I have significantly more voluntary control than a lot of people do, though admittedly not absolute. I haven't tried to control the muscles in my intestines or or synthesize metabolic enzymes, nor would I have any way to measure that, but I have slowed my heart to 10 beats per minute and my breathing to one cycle per minute before. I hesitate to go beyond that and actually try to stop my heart I.E. kill myself, however. I also can control blood flow to deliberately heat(increase blood flow to) or cool(deacrease blood flow to) parts of my body(I can stick one hand in slightly warm water and the other in slightly cool water and meditate for a few minutes, then pull them out and the one in the warm water is colder than the one in the cool water)
Now, I can't prove that I can do that, you'll have to take my word for it or throw it out. My brother has seen me do it though.

But there are people who have total voluntary control over their bodies so far as I can tell. some monks for example, are even capable of drinking liquids backwards. I.E. through the anus(control of muscles in intestines)...and no, I haven't tried that one either, nor do I think that there would be a point.

I am impressed. I have also seen videotapes of Buddhist monks meditating under an EEG scanner and they can almost completely shut down their alpha waves. Note that according to solipsism, these monks may however not really exist. Still, if the universe exists in your mind, it might be possible to do mind exercises allowing you to free yourself from the contraints that we experience as "the laws of the universe". However, it can be argued that the mental barriers against that are huge. Would you really want to live in a world that obeys no natural laws? In which anything could happen at any moment, in which there are no challenges, no causality, no predictability? There are stories of people suffering brain damage who cannot store any new memories, they live in perpetual wonder and uncertainty of who and where they are.
I think that they ability to know and manipulate absolutely everything would drive you insane in an instant. The laws of nature are electrical fuses, for your own protection.

Apologies, Explanation two isn't your position. how about explanation three:

Explanation three- There may or may not be a universe-we do not have any evidence either way, but given that there is no evidence, it is most logical to assume that there is no universe outside our mind and that we are imagining it.

I completely agree... with "we" and "our" defined as "whoever reads this", not "every human on the planet".
No need to apologize, I am sure that you got the point, I wanted to be sure about the others, too.

You can show that objects remain consistent even when we are not looking at them and that therefore the whole universe must be consistent-which is beyond any demonstrated human capability.

if an artist looks at a tree, then goes inside his house and draws the tree, then returns to look at the tree again, it can perfectly match the drawing.(possible if, in the time that you weren't looking at the tree, your unconscious mind decided that it looked like your drawing and when you went back it wasn't the way it was before, but the way you drew it.) But there is also the possibility that the same artist looks at a tree, goes into his study and draws it, then, with 100% confidence that it is correct, returns to find that he has misplaced a branch.

Confidence cannot be immediately, directly altered by conscious thought-it stems from the unconscious. The only way to alter it consciously would be to repeat messages to yourself to filter them into the unconscious to increase your confidence. what this shows is that your unconscious is confident that you are correct, and if it is your unconscious mind that creates the universe as you stroll through the park to find the tree again, were it convinced that you are correct, you would be.

I am not sure on what is your point here. There can be mismatches between memory/expectation and senses, but why would that infer external existence? It only shows that our experiences are not completely consistent, which has been known for a long time. There was once a psychology experiment. As with any experiment, people had to come to the university some time in advance to fill in their consent forms. However, they didn't know that this *was* the experiment. The subject was told that forms could be obtained at a counter. They went to the counter, asked the guy for a form, and the guy went down to get the form. Then, a totally different guy came up to give the form, and the majority of the people didn't notice.
Daniel Dennett has discussed this kind of memory editing as well in his book "Consciousness explained".

also, though it probably is my failure to see an application of something you said, did you answer this?

3:why are some people deficient in certain areas of intelligence(such as math) yet somehow capable of simultaneously excelling in all of them to the point where they can create in their imagination things such as higher calculus, great works of literature, foreign languages which are self-consistent e.t.c.-yet incapable of understanding them at the same time?(Brings up the question. can you imagine something that you don't understand? I can't think of an example thereof)

I believe that I explained this already. The abilities of your conscious mind are not the same as that of your unconscious mind. This is most apparent during (non-lucid) dreaming, when your unconscious mind is able to generate and manipulate entire worlds, but you conscious mind has no more power over those worlds than over the waking world.

and I'll add a 4th question that occurred to me:
4:how are people capable of holding unconscious thoughts or prejudices that are wrong, when their unconscious mind is what actually creates the universe?

There are two arguments against this:
First, how do you know it's wrong? At any moment, whatever you believe is right, unless you experience evidence against it. Then, you have the memory of believing something wrong, but still, whatever you believe then is right. And second, again, the fact that your experiences/memories may be inconsistent does not point to an external existence.

And I really would like to know if someone can come up with an example of imagining something that you do not understand and cannot figure out without someone else explaining it to you.(like a complicated math equation that is far above your head-but I've never imagined such a thing-it had to be shown to me)

That "someone else" person would be a fragment of your mind, too! You are explaining it to yourself!

Just to give you some more ammunition:
Note that your arguments so far are mostly of the type "how can explanation 2 be possible if ...". While I do not defend explanation 2, my explanation 3 does state that it is a possibility. So, if you can disprove explanation 2, you will have disproved my stance, too. However, I hope that we can agree that I do not have to prove any of the mechanisms I propose here... merely to show that they are possible.
The other type of argument would be "why is it more parsimonious to accept explanation 3 over explanation 1", which is a very different kind of reasoning.