"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <this@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said :
>>> Solipsism is a dead end.
>>
>> But that alone doesn't rule it out.
>
> Not to a fool, no.
Oh, there's a lot better minds than mine that concern themselves with it:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/
I think the problem here isn't so much a matter of the validity of
solipsism as a philosophical model, or as a problem that requires
resolution - it's more a matter of polarised opinions on Usenet.
It's just that there are a lot of people on Usenet who like to believe
that
their viewpoint is correct, that all who don't share it are fools, and
that
spending time in discussion with fools is merely wasting good
op****tunities
for mockery.
>>>> Given that my consciousness is the only one I can know for certain
>>>> actually exists, solipsism would seem to be a reasonable
>>>> conclusion.
>>>
>>> Then who are you talking to?
>>
>> Read again. You'll see that I said:
>>
>> "I don't adhere to the strict standards demanded by some here, and
>> so,
>
> So you are a hypocrite.
Really? Let me see: I said that there is no way to prove *objectively*
that other minds exist (philosophers seem to agree - see link above). The
attitude of some here is that if there is not "objective, verifiable
evidence" for something then it should be rejected. I said that if I
adhered to that standard then, by virtue of the non-existence of objective
evidence that the reality I perceive is the real one, I should reject the
reality I perceive.
I then said that, because I did *not* adhere to that standard, I am free
to
accept the reality I see and behave accordingly.
Now, if you'd like to explain to me how that amounts to hypocrisy, I'd be
fascinated to hear it. Or maybe it's just a favourite word?
>> What you call 'reality' is simply your own assumption, as my reality
>> is
>
> But you forget. I'm not real according to you.
No, you missed the point. If I said I required 'objective, verifiable
evidence' of a thing before I accepted it, then I would have to consider
you unreal. Since I do *not* require that, and am willing to accept what
I
see, I am free to treat you as real based on nothing more than my
perception of you (or at least, of the messages that appear to be from
you).
> And since, as you have said, you can't know reality
> then what you say is not real.
It may well not be. Assuming you are a consciousness in your own right,
that would be for you to decide for yourself. If you're not, then it
doesn't really matter anyway.
>> Your points here are all perfectly reasonable, as far as they go -
>> but they all depend on a pre-established assumption that what you see
>> is what's actually there.
>
> Have your heard of the term 'irony'?
There's a stock Baldrick quote for occasions such as this.
>> What is real?
>
> Nothing you know, according to your statements.
Precisely.
|
