tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-907877137113195177.post2747373305719864234..comments2023-10-25T01:55:08.148-07:00Comments on Skeptical Studies: A logically absolute proof for the existence of a world outside the mindDarrinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12757150483103267411noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-907877137113195177.post-72511804817842053942017-07-19T13:06:33.519-07:002017-07-19T13:06:33.519-07:00Maybe i am missing something, but i'm interest...Maybe i am missing something, but i'm interested in your opinionFabriciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12272634201149945741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-907877137113195177.post-63859652158644614082017-07-19T13:03:56.910-07:002017-07-19T13:03:56.910-07:00Honestly is the most interesting argument i have c...Honestly is the most interesting argument i have come across so far, but i had this idea, <br /><br />why is it safe to assume that the beginning of one's perceptions is the absolute beginning of one self? couldn't the solipsist have lose the memory of past perceptions? couldn't the creative force have a content derived from the previous perceptions?Fabriciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12272634201149945741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-907877137113195177.post-11541234793684327702010-02-19T13:24:49.438-08:002010-02-19T13:24:49.438-08:00Your proof against solipsism fails because you are...Your proof against solipsism fails because you are making an assumption that a solipsist need not make, i.e., that the solipsist could not have had a creator who or which is currently existent. The solipsist simply maintains that all that he or she perceives is a manifestation of his or own mind. There is nothing in the argument that precludes that that mind could not have been created from without that which it can perceive; in other words, another dimension of reality. <br /><br />If characters within a novel could achieve sentience and intelligence, they would have no way of directly perceiving our dimension of reality in which their author lives or lived. All of their direct, eternal experiences would be contained within the pages of their book. <br /><br />They could, however, infer the existence of a creator. I wrote a proof of a creator piece that examines this issue. Here is the URL if you are interested in taking five minutes or so some time: <br /><br />http://wwwdnschneidercom.xbuild.com/#/miscellaneous-7/4526495432 <br /><br />My proof is based upon Einstein’s STR. <br /><br />Your argument is better suited as a proof of a creator effort and is basically a restatement of Aquinas’s "uncaused first cause" argument in support of the existence of God. Refuting solipsism per se is impossible. That means it is an unscientific theory which, by the way, does not necessarily mean that it is untrue. After all, if something is true then by definition it is impossible to refute it.<br /><br />Don SchneiderDonald Schneiderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01404936245520867331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-907877137113195177.post-14819110521091982642009-05-18T11:14:00.000-07:002009-05-18T11:14:00.000-07:00A month ago, Darrin wrote making sure the world yo...A month ago, Darrin wrote <I>making sure the world you perceive actually exists isn't a question that you feel is important.</I>This is me. It's not a question I worry about. It's not even my presupposition (that reality is real).<br /><br />I will act as if it's real because it's pragmatic to do so. Beyond that, it may actually be an illusion.<br /><br />I don't care.Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-907877137113195177.post-62232526079135968852009-04-14T19:40:00.000-07:002009-04-14T19:40:00.000-07:00As far as "cause," my argument works for the follo...As far as "cause," my argument works for the following definition, typically taken by most philosophers (it is not my own, but it still works here). Note this is workable whether or not solipsism is presumed. <br /><br />a causes b def.= "if not-a then not-b"Darrinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12757150483103267411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-907877137113195177.post-10974866702065403992009-04-14T19:39:00.000-07:002009-04-14T19:39:00.000-07:00Solipsism def.= "The belief that existence is sole...Solipsism def.= "The belief that existence is solely consciousness and the content of one's consciousness." <br /><br />(Solipsistic) perception def.= "a separable element of the contents of consciousness" <br /><br />(Solipsistic) Content of consciousness def.= "an existent directly stimulating one's consciousness." <br /><br />(Solipsistic) Consciousness def.="The faculty which creates and identifies percepts" <br /><br />An existent under any worldview is an identity, i.e. a nature, i.e. a quantifiable set of quality. <br /><br />Recall that it is immediate that if solipsism is falsified, an external world exists.Darrinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12757150483103267411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-907877137113195177.post-71231126785179360992009-04-14T17:40:00.000-07:002009-04-14T17:40:00.000-07:00please define "perception" in the case that solips...please define "perception" in the case that solipsism is true.<br />please define "cause" in the case that solipsism is true.<br />if solipsism is true what is "outside"?<br />does not definition of solipsism include its own contradiction?<br />etc.Salvatore Nel Prossimo de La Mia Vitahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07018915395074461891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-907877137113195177.post-70921896137407746662009-04-14T15:17:00.000-07:002009-04-14T15:17:00.000-07:00By the way, as a side note, asking me to provide a...By the way, as a side note, asking me to provide a proof for my existence already presumes that I exist to provide a proof, so I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that you doubt that I have shown that I exist.Darrinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12757150483103267411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-907877137113195177.post-89368288910259606622009-04-14T15:15:00.000-07:002009-04-14T15:15:00.000-07:00Heya Sye,
I'm sorry I upset you - it was not at ...Heya Sye, <br /><br />I'm sorry I upset you - it was not at all my intention. I attempted to make the post conversational, but it seems like it backfired on me. I added a flowchart at the top of this post to outline my detailed discussion below it, and have tried to stay away from extremely dense topics in the flowchart itself. <br /><br />The reason I made it is because I do consider it a serious question in line with the topic we have at hand (you did, after all, ask whether I can show an external world exists - so here is the proof!). Tell me what you think of the new flowchart I included, and I will be glad to clarify any questions about it that you have. We can work through this together - it's a learning experience for both of us, after all, and if you do end up refuting this and the account I gave for logic, I must be compelled to accept the conclusion of TAG. But even if I refute TAG, that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, even Bahnsen said that! <br /><br />The comment about "extreme ridicule" was not directed at you at all my friend; as I said, I think it is a serious point to consider. What I meant was that philosophers who write papers <I>refuting</I> solipsism will likely be ridiculed by most other philosophers, because they often do not seek truth. I'm sure we both agree on that point. :)Darrinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12757150483103267411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-907877137113195177.post-30142844759071522472009-04-14T06:44:00.000-07:002009-04-14T06:44:00.000-07:00I do not see how your conclusion follows from your...I do not see how your conclusion follows from your premises. I doubt that you have shown that you exist, and I see nowhere where you have shown that the outside world exists. <br /><br />I am not a philosopher, but I am beginning to see why theories like this would bring the one who posits it under 'extreme ridicule' though.<br /><br />You have again resorted to these long convoluted posts, and have completely strayed, as far as I can see, from the topic at hand. Perhaps it would be better if you held this discussion with yourself.<br /><br />Please think long and hard before you post again, this is just getting silly, and I have nearly lost all interest.Sye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.com