Being a solipsist is unreasonable.
Oh...Liber may be intersted in this debate.
-
Note for Andy: There really should be a category called "Philosophy" when making a debate.
Yes.
Side Score: 11
|
 |
You don't exist.
Side Score: 13
|
|
|
|
|
Clarification: 1. Definition of solipsism. The definition I gave was incomplete. solipsism: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; [1] What is reasonable? So back to the point. If something has overwhelming odds against it's veracity, its veracity has not been justified. Thus, until my someone shows the odds to be in favor of solipsist beliefs, he has lost. In addition to this, he/she must prove there is sufficient logical grounds upon which to hold said beliefs. - - Arguments: Before I can address solipsist beliefs directly, I will first define them. What does a solipsist believe? 1. They, "the self," are the only extant entity. 2. All other objects, people, thoughts, and actions independent of the self are figments of their consciousness. - I. Uncaused First Cause Given: The mind created all people, things, places, thoughts collectively are (many) complex objects, and the mind is all that exists. (solipsism) 2. All people, things, places, thoughts collectively are (many) complex objects. 3. Complex objects must be created a) by other complex objects (factories, thoughts [2]) or b) from simpler things over time (ex. evolution [3]). 4. The mind is, therefore, a complex entity. 5. The mind must have been created (a) by other complex objects (factories, thoughts [2]) or b) from simpler things over time (ex. evolution [3])--which way is irrelevant). 6. If the mind was created, it is not all that exists. Conclusion: Therefore the premise is false and the mind is a) not the creator of all people, things, places, thoughts OR b) not all that exists. Either way, solipsism fails. (That was the most complex indirect proof I have ever come up with) - II. Argument from Likelihood/ Statistical Improbability Given: All people, things, places, thoughts do not exist and are merely figments of consciousness of one mind (one person). A solipsist believes only he/she exists. (solipsism) 2. Only one person, of all people, conscious beings, existed. 3. Only one person, of all people, conscious beings, can logically be a solipsist. 4. 107,000,000,000 people (I will stick with just humans, have been alive. [4] 5. Only one of those 107,000,000,000 people can logically be a solipsist and be correct about their beliefs. 6. There is a 0.0000000009% chance that a solipsist is correct in his/her beliefs. Those are astounding odds. My opponent may object to my use of the 107,000,000,000 [4] number as the majority are dead (and therefore never existed even in the consciousness of the solipsist). If we use the 7,000,000,000 [5] number (humans alive), there is a 0.000000014% chance a solipsist is correct in their beliefs. With this proof, the possibility of veracity exists logically, but the debate is about whether or not it is "reasonable" to believe such. - III. Argument from Biological Necessity. There is no basis upon which to presume that only one consciousness can exist. Biology proves that the "mind" and "self" and other cognitive phenomena are the results of biochemical attractions, interactions, and effects. "Our 'minds', 'souls', 'spirit' and consciousness are all physical in nature. Thousands of years of research have shown that our brains comprise and produce our true selves. Souls and spirits do not exist. Our bodies run themselves. We know from cases of brain damage and the effects of psychoactive drugs, that our experiences are caused by physical chemistry acting on our physical neurons in our brains. Our innermost self is our biochemical self.” [7] - - Conclusion: I have shown that being a solipsist is self-contradictory (Argument 1), highly improbable veracity (Argument 2), and is not biologically necessary (Argument 3). Again, we are not debating logicality, we are debating whether such a position is unreasonable. - - Sources: 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com/ 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution 4. http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/ 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 6. Logic. 7. "Souls do not Exist: Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism" by Vexen Crabtree Side: Yes.
This would have been great for a first-time Challenge Debate! a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing I disagree with this definition. I've taken my knowledge of solipsism directly from the writings of Descartes, and my interpretation thereof is that solipsism merely attempts to remove from the realm of "knowledgedom" anything which is perceived through the senses, for the senses are fallible. This definition sounds more along the lines of Gorgias's solipsism, not Descartes's. According to Wikipedia (since you've already used it as a source), Epistemological Solipsism is the category under which I fall - and therefore shall argue - whilst Metaphysical Solipsism is, as I stated previously, more in line with the thinking of Gorgias, as well as your definition: only the self exists, as opposed to only the self can be known to exist. You seem to have done a lot of work crafting your argument, but I am afraid that I cannot argue against your points against metaphysical solipsism. As I am typing this, I've read most of your argument, but not thoroughly; I shall argue against that which is an argument in opposition to solipsism in the epistemological sense, but I agree with you in the downfalls of solipsism in the metaphysical sense. Uncaused First Cause This argument relies on the veridicality of the universe-bound laws of science; all such laws - time, as well - may be figments of my imagination and therefore cannot disprove the singular existence of my mind. All people, things, places, thoughts collectively are (many) complex objects. What makes you think that they are complex? Perhaps, as I see it, their complexities are products of my imagination, and they are really quite simple? In other words, simply because "people" see it as being complex, doesn't mean that, to my mind, they are complex. The mind is, therefore, a complex entity If my mind is the only thing in existence, then it is neither simple nor complex, for it is without anything with which to be compared. a) not the creator of all people, things, places, thoughts This is where Descartes failed. He believed in God, which he claimed existed alongside his mind as the only other thing which can be known to exist by him. II. Argument from Likelihood/ Statistical Improbability 4. 107,000,000,000 people (I will stick with just humans, have been alive. I'll say what I've always said: that figure is, as PBS admits, a "guesstimate". It is unknowable. Only one of those 107,000,000,000 people can logically be a solipsist Why can they all not logically be solipsists? and [only one can] be correct about their beliefs. This statement implies that one is correct in being a solipsist. A slip of the thumb, perhaps? With this proof, the possibility of veracity exists logically, but the debate is about whether or not it is "reasonable" to believe such. Times like this I wish I'd have closed that Old English dictionary and actually paid attention in math class. No problem, though, for I needn't use math to fight math; good thing I paid attention in philosophy. Solipsism is not a mathematical proposition. The numbers are irrelevant to the solipsist, for he is not concerned with what other people may believe on the matter, for only he himself is aware of his own existence. I am 100% (well, maybe closer to 99%) sure that I exist; there is no 0.000000014%, for I am not sure of their existences, only my own. III. Argument from Biological Necessity. Which, once again, presupposes the existence of a bios, a living thing, to study (logia). My thoughts can only be known to myself as phenomena; they cannot be compared. Without comparisons, where is science? Again, we are not debating logicality, we are debating whether such a position is unreasonable. Did you change the debate title? I seem to recall it having been something more along the lines of "Solipsism is illogical and absurd". 6. Logic. In which argument did you use this? I do not recall having seen it in the body of your argument. Perhaps you meant for it to be a reference, not a source. Side: You don't exist.
I disagree with this definition. Take it up with Merriam Webster. This argument relies on the veridicality of the universe-bound laws of science; all such laws - time, as well - may be figments of my imagination and therefore cannot disprove the singular existence of my mind. This is true for the figments of your consciousness; however, the mind exists independent of them, and, therefore, must be acted on by other axioms by the very fact of its existence. What makes you think that they are complex? The universe and everything in it isn'y exactly "simple." If my mind is the only thing in existence, then it is neither simple nor complex, for it is without anything with which to be compared. It can be compared to that which it creates. For something to have created the universe and all that is in it, it must be as complex as the things it creates (otherwise it would be "created." rather "evolved"). I'll say what I've always said: that figure is, as PBS admits, a "guesstimate". It is unknowable. Irrelevant to my point. Why can they all not logically be solipsists? Dammit, Liber. Put up the full quote. This statement implies that one is correct in being a solipsist. What? It is only reasonable for someone to be a solipsist if he/she believes they are correct in their beliefs. Solipsism is not a mathematical proposition. Irrelevant. I'm talking about the mathematical probability of the veracity of solipsistic beliefs. I could very well be a figment of your consciousness. You could be a figment of mine. We could both be the figments of the consciousness of anyone in the world. What makes you the one (out of 7,000,000,000) that is correct? My thoughts can only be known to myself as phenomena; they cannot be compared. Without comparisons, where is science? Already stated how. Did you change the debate title? I seem to recall it having been something more along the lines of "Solipsism is illogical and absurd". Well, I didn't make this argument for CreateDebate, and the title of the debate was about reasonability, so, to not sound like an idiot, I made the titles the same. But, while not technically illogical, it is absurd and unreasonable. Side: Yes.
Take that, Liber ! http://www.debate.org/debates/ Side: Yes.
1
point
That one can only know their own existence to be true and nothing else is both illogical and absurd, given that certain axioms, which can be said to be external to the person, exist in isolation from the person: Mathematics: The purest proofs exist apart from the individual, by virtue of their complete and utter reliance on the fabric of logic itself. Side: Yes.
Solipsism is unreasonable because it assumes the possibility of a mind independent of substance even though the experience of said mind is informed entirely by the experience of the substances (external world) that its reality is predicated upon and is located within (its human body). It is more reasonable to assume that the world outside oneself is necessarily prior to and required for a mind – Solipsists might believe that their perspective is justified by Descartes meditations, however, Descartes was not attempting to deny the corporeal, he was merely attempting to emphasize beyond any shadow of a doubt that human awareness is always, and can only be, the world of perceptions - that there is no knowledge of the world in and of itself - that the world in and of itself is not knowable. In our contemporary age much of our society understands these two categories as the subjective vs. the objective which i feel is a more fruitful delineation of the two categories of being. I feel that it is more fruitful to think in these terms because objective knowledge is possible within a subjective mind. There is a limit, but many kinds of objectivity are readily apparent and immediate to the mind. Solipsists might also believe that they are the sole being, and thus center of their knowable universe, because they cannot prove to their own subjective that there is an objective actuality that precedes them. However, to assume that there is not is too strong of an assumption to make about the question and is therefore unwarranted. Side: Yes.
It's a tad paranoid, isn't it? :) I will admit that often I wonder if I'm not huddled in a corner somewhere rocking back and forth, living in this gargantuan, made-up world I conjured for myself. But then I think, what kind of individuals would we be to create such elaborate lives and, if we really are thinking all these things up, why isn't my life better? I just can't perceive that humankind is that advanced. Side: Yes.
|
To start off, for those who do not know what solipsism is: solipsism is the belief that nothing can be known other than your own existence. Can be summed up with the Latin phrase by René Descartes cogito ergo sum, "I think therefore I am". Solipsism is the most logical philosophical position in that the solipsist asserts than nothing can be known by the solipsist to be true which exists outside of the solipsist itself. I think, so I must have a mind with which to think; maybe not a physical brain, but a mind. However, I cannot be sure that anything else exists. My physical body (eyes, ears, and all other senses) may not exist beyond my imagination, and everything which I experience through them (ie. everything not purely rational) is potentially imaginary. I fail to see how anything but this can be logical, for every other philosophy of which I am aware supposes the existence of a universe outside of my mind, something of which I cannot be sure. Side: You don't exist.
is something else entirely from saying, therefore, that thing cannot and does not exist. That is not at all what solipsists say. Solipsists - as I did previously - say that we cannot know that anything else exists. A solipsist doesn't say that nothing else exists, but that there is no way to definitively prove that there is in existence anything outside of one's own mind. Side: You don't exist.
1
point
|
