Originally posted by amannionI've already referred to an "altered and impaired state of mind", analogous to sleep. The fact that one may struggle over problems in one's sleep, and yet, upon waking, be able to solve them easily or else easily see that they aren't genuine problems at all, does not change the fact that within that state, one may not have access to all of ones mental faculties and memories.
I guess what I'm really trying to figure out is how you live your life. Are you married, do you have kids, a girlfriend, friends, and so on. How do you interact with them? Do they find it strange that you don't believe they exist or does this not bother them?
Clearly your skills are impressive - you must be able to play all instruments ever designed (or im ...[text shortened]... ave written.
And of course,on a personal note, I thank you for the life you have given me ...
That said, it's quite apparent to me that I am making up certain things as I go along. It's also apparent that most of the literature existing in my universe would never have been written by anyone, and that therefore a great deal of what one might call "corrupted text" exists. Sometimes I manage to fix this on the fly, as it were, but often not.
As for languages or other knowledge which I do not possess, it seems to me that your remark implies a great deal of presumption. After all, how am I to assess the reality of a language with which I am not familiar? How am I to assess the extent of detail of a grammar which I am unacquainted with? All I know about Chinese, for example, is a kind of characteristic sound, and that rather vaguely. Your remark implies the existence of a whole universe below the surface of my direct knowledge and comprehension, but the mere impression of detail is not the same as its existence.
As for proficiency with instruments, I've sometimes heard remarkable and wonderful music in sleeping dreams. Who was playing it, may I ask? Also in sleeping dreams, I've heard (or imagined I heard) conversations in foreign languages, seen incredible and staggering architectures, observed events, beings, and phenomena of an amazing level of creativity, which at the time seemed quite convincing. Are you saying that, because of this, my sleeping dreams must have been peopled by real, independent beings, with real instruments, real talents, real languages, real sciences, etc? Aren't you being rather naive?
2 edits
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsThis does not sound like solipsism to me. You are not the only thing that exists; there is a bizarre other-ego that makes you dream reality. In an almost hyde-and-jekyll psychology, your imagination is separated as an autonomous thing outside the conscious self.
I've already referred to an "altered and impaired state of mind", analogous to sleep. The fact that one may struggle over problems in one's sleep, and yet, upon waking, be able to solve them easily or else easily see that they aren't genuine problems at all, does not change the fact that within that state, one may not have access to all of ones m s, real talents, real languages, real sciences, etc? Aren't you being rather naive?
Plus, it must be difficult for a solipsist to understand any language, given that language is a social phenomenon. How does a solipsist learn a language, if not from another? ... And why would a solipsist have a language if the communicant and receiver were the same?
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsNo, I'm really just trying to understand how someone deals with the notion of solipsism.
I've already referred to an "altered and impaired state of mind", analogous to sleep. The fact that one may struggle over problems in one's sleep, and yet, upon waking, be able to solve them easily or else easily see that they aren't genuine problems at all, does not change the fact that within that state, one may not have access to all of ones m ...[text shortened]... s, real talents, real languages, real sciences, etc? Aren't you being rather naive?
I can understand why you would take that position, but I guess I see the world in two possible lights - one it really exists, or two it's just a construction of my mind.
I use the first as my basic principle because it seems to me that it is the simpler position to take. The constructions of my mind act as if they were independent of it, and so I treat them as if they were.
You seem not to, and I'm genuinely intrigued by how this plays out in your world.
I guess it's like asking a christian, how their christianity impinges on and interacts with the conduct of their life.
Now of course the glib response from you is that you don't need to deal with anything, since nothing else exists beyond your mind. But how exactly do you work with and live with others - what seems to be their experience of your position?
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsI DO think that my universe is (in one sense or another) a figment of my imagination. I'm the only sentient being in it.
I DO think that my universe is (in one sense or another) a figment of my imagination. I'm the only sentient being in it.
"You" (the text appearing on my screen associated with the name "amannion" ) certainly are a figment. But then, so is the screen it appears on.
When I'm sleeping, I sometimes interact with dream figures, too. And in that alter ...[text shortened]... to?
Thanks for playing. The announcer has a nice door prize for you on your way out.
Of course, since my universe is (in one sense or another) a figment of my imagination, you are not a sentient being in it. And since my consciousness is neither altered nor impaired (how could that possibly be, since my consciousness is the only measure of anything, including notions of “impairment” ) there can be no argument, except as I myself generate for my own amusement. My universe is quite coherent.
Originally posted by vistesdSo if your universe is a figment of your imagination, how do you know whether or not it's coherent?
[b]I DO think that my universe is (in one sense or another) a figment of my imagination. I'm the only sentient being in it.
Of course, since my universe is (in one sense or another) a figment of my imagination, you are not a sentient being in it. And since my consciousness is neither altered nor impaired (how could that possibly be, since my consciou ...[text shortened]... no argument, except as I myself generate for my own amusement. My universe is quite coherent.[/b]
The idea that the universe is a figment of the imagination is just that. A figment of the imagination. Otherwise nothing is real. If nothing is real, then everything doesn't exist. If nothing exists, there's nothing left to say.
Or is it just my imagination? 🙄
Originally posted by freightdog37The anticipation is killing me. I love comedies!
I was curious to see what everyones thoughts are about this movie that is coming out this week. If you go to see the trailer on his site be aware it loads slowly (at least it did for me).
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
Originally posted by amannion🙂 So instead of sticking to topic they got personal too.
I haven't seen it, but the Scientific American podcast - Science Talk - did a nice review of it. They pretty much completely panned it, as you'd expect. They also did an extra 1 hour discussion with one of the film's producers - this is very interesting and revealing.
The film essentially sets itself as a journalistic exploration of the issues. It claims t ...[text shortened]... at's all from someone else's reading of the film.
But I wouldn't bother watching it ...
Kelly
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsYou interact with the universe in only one point, youself, it does not
I DO think that my universe is (in one sense or another) a figment of my imagination. I'm the only sentient being in it.
"You" (the text appearing on my screen associated with the name "amannion" ) certainly are a figment. But then, so is the screen it appears on.
When I'm sleeping, I sometimes interact with dream figures, too. And in that alter ...[text shortened]... to?
Thanks for playing. The announcer has a nice door prize for you on your way out.
mean that you are alone, it does not mean that you make it up as
you go, you may twist the way you would like to view it, as you can
enlarge or shrink the text on a document; however, the document
will be what it is.
Kelly
2 edits
Perhaps the following anecdote will help to illustrate the absurdity of solipsism: According to Bertrand Russell, a lady, who claimed to be a solipsist, wrote him a letter and asked him why he thought that more people weren't solipsists.
Solipsim is one of the few philosophies that has less intellectual credibility than astrology. In fact, one popular philosophy textbook (I forget which one), after a brief discussion of solipsism, noted that no major philosopher has ever claimed to be a solipsist (although Hume acknowledged that solipsism was a possible consequence of his skeptism).
A related anecdote: During a Philosophy 101 class, a smart-aleck boy in the back of the classroom shouts at the professor, "How do I know that I exist?" The professor, not missing a beat, quickly yells back: "Who wants to know?"
Originally posted by amannionAccepting the conventional representation of my world is not simpler, since it is inconsistent with my observations. Many of those observations (as I've already suggested in referring to a position of centrality within my universe) involve a good deal of behavior by so-called others which conclusively indicates that they are not genuinely sentient, independent beings.
No, I'm really just trying to understand how someone deals with the notion of solipsism.
I can understand why you would take that position, but I guess I see the world in two possible lights - one it really exists, or two it's just a construction of my mind.
I use the first as my basic principle because it seems to me that it is the simpler position to ta ...[text shortened]... do you work with and live with others - what seems to be their experience of your position?
I seldom speak honestly of my views since that could lead to problems for me. I usually maintain a highly superficial conventionality in my interactions with them.
On those comparatively few occasions when I have spoken openly and "in-person" to the apparent other humans about their non-sentience, their responses have varied but include a number of interesting and illuminating reactions. In one case, the response was agitation combined with the verbal statement that I "am not supposed to talk about that". In another case, a pair of them suddenly changed from facial expressions displaying a high degree of (apparent) emotional affect, to utterly blank expressions suggestive of literal idiocy and a near-complete lack of thought and affect, similar to the appearance of individuals who have been subjected to lobotomizing brain surgery. They were not joking and seemed largely unaware of this behavior, resuming their previous behavior after a brief interval of vacuity. These examples are merely illustrative and are by no means exhaustive.
Their behavior is generally abnormal and since the veneer this abnormality hides behind is so porous, so cosmetic, and so frequently violated, their oddity is in fact something of an "open-secret" -- something which they themselves seem to acknowledge much of the time.
The principle motif of their behavior is a hostility toward sentient beings (i.e., myself), though their behavior is incoherent and so they do not demonstrate uniform hostility. Their behavior is highly dependent upon my own internal states (and certain seemingly inscrutable and capricious factors), and they display an as-if awareness of information which they would, if independent beings, have no access to. I find myself able to influence them in odd ways also (odd relative to the erroneous premise that they are sentient, independent beings, and odd relative to the conventional scientific laws and worldview which publically predominates my world.)
Unfortunately, the extent to which I am able to modify their behavior is not adequate to meet my needs or to render my existence palatable. They remain untrustworthy and hostile, and I have thus been conditioned to tend to avoid interacting with them.
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsYou'd only be replying to non-existent beings anyway, so why do you give a sh** anyway?
The latest round of responses (re solipsism) have been singularly obtuse. No need to reply to them.
BTW, if you ever stop at a stop sign when you are driving, then you are admitting that there are other people who will run you over and perhaps kill you. One might be able to entertain some sort of intellectual committment to solipsism, but being a solipsist operationally is probably impossible. Even you no doubt behave with people as if their minds really existed, so what is the "cash value" (to use William James' term) of being a solipsist anyway?