Randolpin

First I want to ask, why solipsist insist that all around us are hallucinations? Why is this so?

 

My argument which is called conscious individual argument, is I think, the stepping stone to defy solipsism. I am conscious myself, you are conscious yourself, we are conscious ourselves. This discussion are worthless If you are only my illusions and I am only the one that exist.But obviously, it is not. And you know that.

 

Again from the idea above that there are many conscious individual thus prove that I am not the only one that exist. We can't say it is only due to my illusion that I conclude this. If you ask, what is the evidence, again the evidence is in this discussion itself. This discussion is worthless of you are only my illusions. So I think that you are not my illusions because you are as rational, have ideas as I.

A philosophical debate based strictly on philosophy without applying science would never end. Two good philosophers can always find counter arguments to any argument presented.

"The tests of what we understand of reality is the strongest form of argument"

The tests will tend to favor a particular model or philosophical debate. Without tests the arguments can be endless.

I am not completely agree with this. I think the best way to study reality is to combine science and philosophy. We are able to speculate soundly if we are able to form arguments base on valid premises proven and validated by science.

 

Philosophical debates would end if one of the debaters speculate soundly.

 

 

I have also this new argument. This is called sameness argument.

 

This argument proves that others exist as well as you because you have the same characteristics to them physically, intellectual rationality, etc.

 

Since I have the same characteristics as you being a human being, therefore it follows logically that you have also consciousness just like me and therefore you exist also just like me. You are not being fooled by your senses because your senses agree with each other and also senses also agree to the logic above.

Ask someone with schizophrenia.

 

But it doesn't matter "how" it can happen. There is no independent evidence, beyond your own senses and mind, for the existence of anything (including other people).

 

 

 

This is a straw man (or straw snake) argument. You invent a type of hallucination that doesn't correspond to reality and then claim it proves that hallucinations do not behave like reality.

 

What about a hallucination of a snake that slithers out of the grass and then runs away when you approach it. It behaves just like a real snake.

 

Also, we are not talking about drug-created hallucinations. They were just introduced to refute the claim that people cannot have hallucinations that affect all sense consistently. They obviously can, whether due to drugs or psychosis.

 

But if you see a snake, you can only compare it to your idea of what a "real" snake should do based on your memories, which were created by your mind. So there is no reason that any snake you see (which is, therefore, a creation of your mind) would not behave exactly like your memory of other snakes created by your mind.

How can you consider our reality or the reality that surrounds you as a hallucination?

 

Consider this new argument. This argument is called constancy argument. In this argument, you cannot consider the reality around you as hallucination because it appears always as what it should be with LEC. You see your bedroom the same way it is before and after you sleep. No matter what you do it still appear the same. Meaning your surroundings is independent from you. You are just a member of your surrounding, not a master mind of your surrounding. This is the constancy argument.

 

 

No I don't. For all I know, you could be a hallucination.

 

 

But how can a hallucination can have a rational mind just like you? Have physical characteristics just like you? Things that really exist has logical existence containment (LEC) -my own words. LEC means the individual exist in a logical way as you observed. Hallucinations does not follow LEC. For example a person takes a drug that causes hallucinations, suddenly a snake just pop into existence from nothing and bite his leg. The existence of the snake is invalid or not real because it does not follow the logical way because it is like magic, it just pop into existence.

 

 

That doesn't seem any different from your other argument.

 

It also the fallacy of begging the question: if you accept that there are other conscious individuals, then this disproves solipsism. But there is no evidence, outside of your own mind, for other conscious individuals. Therefore there is no evidence against solipsism.

 

 

1. It is not a fact that you have free will. Depending on which definition of "free will" you uses, this ranges from impossible, to implausible to meaningless.

 

2. Even if you appear to have free will, it could be an invention of your mind. It says nothing about the existence of anything outside your mind.

 

3. Solipsism does not require an "ultimate mind or consciousness" (whatever that means); only that all the other conscious individuals you perceive are creations of your own mind. At an extreme (idealism) nothing exists except what is crated by your mind.

 

 

I think the issue is solved because, you know I exist, as well as I know that you exist. There is no hard thing about this to attach to solipsism. You are not my illusion because you are independent from me. I don't even know what your mind is thinking now and vice versa.

That "proof" only exists inside your own mind. As does everything you know about "reality".

 

Anything you think of as independent evidence of the existence of others is also purely in your own mind.

 

You have no access to reality (or the existence others) except through your senses; in other words, what your mind tells you. And we know that often deceived you.

 

So it may seem obvious that reality exists "out there" and that there are other people, but it is just your mind telling that!

 

The words you should have highlighted were ones like "assumin" and "indicate" and others showing a lack of certainty.

 

Also, as you should know, all scientific statements of "fact" should be (and implicitly are) accompanied by statements such as: as far as we know; current evidence indicates; consistent with our best models; subject to change; etc

 

I have a new argument against this. This is called- Conscious individual argument. This argument rationally argue against solipsism in the sense that each of us independently exist because each of us human beings are conscious on our own selves. I am conscious that you and others exist as well as you is also conscious that me and others exist and also others are also conscious that you and me and others themselves exist. Therefore since we human beings has consciousness on our own selves, and since we know for sure (base on solipsism) that you know you yourself exist and base on this, since all of us know individually that we exist therefore you, me and other people really exist.

Another idea that I think an argument against sollipsism is the fact that we ourselves are conscious and have freedom on what we will do (freewill). In this view, we ourselves are independent from an ultimate mind or consciousness because again we are free to choose which action we should do. Therefore, me, you and any other persons independently exist not depending from an ultimate mind or consciousness because again, we have free will.

Why can't they both be illusions? This is rather foolish.

 

 

Why they are both illusions?

 

The 2 senses agree with each other on sensing the same thing. If they are both illusions, one sense would contradict the other sense. But they both agree.

The trivial counterargument is that the sense of touch is an illusion.

Then it is not an illusion because your sense of sight confirms what you touch.

I have an idea that I think, a rational argument against solipsism. You see a chair, according to solipsism, you don't know whether it really exist or not or just an illusion. But you touch it and feel it. So it is confirmed that it really exist and not just an illusion. Your sense of sight is not lying because your sense of touch confirm it. Even if you are blind, obviously, you can still touch and feel the chair.

 

This is my argument against solipsism. You know that something apart from yourself, really exist. It doesn't depend on your senses. The chair still exist, even you don't have eyes to see it because you know it still exist thru your sense of touch. So, you can't say that yourself only exist and others are only illusion. You know that something exist apart from yourself because it is independent from your senses.Let me call it, sensory recognition approach argument (sraa).

 

So things you agree with are sound and things you disagree with are unsound? Is that correct?

 

Or, can you tell us how anyone can determine what is sound or unsound ?

 

 

 

When we say sound speculation, it means it follows the standards of logic which founded on a valid premise supported by facts of reality. While unsound speculation may be logical but it's premise is not valid and not supported by facts of reality. It may also be not logical.

.

I think your idea to bring YOURSELF high up , if not uppermost , into the idea of Reality , is a very , very good step .

 

I don't want to bring myself up. I just want to discuss the truth.

You seem to think philosophy you don't find useful or if you don't agree with it, then it's unsound and therefor incorrect?

No, there are standards or requirements that measure an argument or speculation if it is logical or not. Let me call this standards as logical standards.

 

 

If they can change, then they are not absolute truths.

 

 

Yes, I agree

Some philosophers would argue that we don't exist, or at least we cannot know if we exist. (See also solipsism.)

 

 

This philosophies are incorrect (imo).

Why they have that philosophy? Are they don't have consciousness? Obviously not. Consciousness itself tells you that you exist. For example, I am conscious with my whole self, that I exist.

And, according to you, they must be right because philosophy is always correct.

 

No, that is not what I mean. Here. Let me classify two types of Speculation.

 

1.Philosophy (Sound speculation)

2. Unsound speculation

 

Your example of solipsism is classified as my second classification.

 

In this view, my assertion that philosophy is always correct is justified because it is sound speculation.

 

So (imo) the proper meaning of philosophy is speculating in a sound and meaningful way.

My point was that everyone might agree it is a coconut (of that species) until someone else comes along and points out that they are wrong, that in fact it is not a coconut but a different fruit altogether. Suddenly your "absolute truth" is not so absolute.

 

This is rather like the "black swan" effect. Everyone might think that all swans are white because they have only ever seen white swans. So their absolute truth is that "all swans are white". And then one day a black swan comes along. Suddenly, their absolute truth turns out to be false. (Like that one about all fish living in water.)

But it depends.. We assume that it is absolute truth until it will be discovered that it is not really absolute. It depends because it is not sure that there should be more to discover. But there are factors that a truth is no need to be scrutinized further because it is absolute. Example, the truth that I am typing this sentence now.

 

There is really absolute truth. Another example is the truth that we exist is absolute. Don't tell me that it is still relative because if you do, you would actually not exist. There is only two options, to exist or not exist. The fact that we exist is truly absolute. This is the absolute truth of existence.

 

Sorry if you don't understand what really my point is because of my English. I'm not really a native English speaker and not good in English.

 

And then a botanist comes along and tells you that it is not a coconut but instead the similar looking fruit of a different tree.

Why do you say that? There is no difference at all. Probe the DNA of coconuts of the same species, they have the same genes. This is what I mean. There is absolute truth about coconuts of the same species as these coconuts have the same number of genes.

And the point I am trying to convey is that this is no way absolute. There are many situations that claiming what you get out of a tap is water is going to either cause unpredictable results or cause danger. This is amplified with more unknown sources.

They very idea that we're having this discussion should show you that it's not absolute.

I also don't think that what is "common sense" to a group of ape descendents on a small blue green planet orbiting an unregarded yellow sun has any bearing on the fundemental working of the universe.

And in other news the sun isn't round. https://www.space.com/17143-weird-sun-shape-revealed.html

So let me give another example to clear things out.

 

You see a coconut, somebody would say that what you see is coconut and so on.. All of them agree on what you see. This is what I mean. Now the question is,"How can you say that it is no way absolute?"

And you missunderstand me. None of your examples are water. They are mixes with a primary component being H2O. At what point does a pond go from water to muddy water to mud? This is not absolute, far from it. You're spouting nonsense.

Sorry,if it is not clear to you. I just want everybody to see what is there description if they see a liquid from the faucet, rivers, ocean- in a common sense way. If I ask you, what is the liquid coming out from the faucet, you would obviously answer water. If I ask also the same question to another person and so on and so forth. They will still answer "water". That is really I want to convey. I hope this makes clear enough.

 

That is the example of absolute truth I want to convey. Another examples, are the moon, the stars, the sun etc.-They are absolute truths. We all agree what they are.

 

In this aspect, we see that there are really absolute truths of reality which is obvious. You can't say that the sun is triangle because we all know, it is round.

An important role of philosophy is to challenge "common sense" by analysing the ideas.

 

So people don't have a common view on these things. For example, some people feel they need to be near the ocean: it is comforting, a source of food and beautiful. Other people think of it as cold, dangerous and a thing to avoid.

 

Some people will happily drink water from a river or a faucet. Others will insist on bottled water.

 

Homer famously described the ocean as the "wine dark sea" whereas today we are more likely to say it is light blue or green.

 

 

It is not the view of some people which is pure opinion because that is not my point. The point is what is there label if they see a liquid from the faucet etc. They will answer water-Obviously. If I ask you, what is it that flows in the faucet? You would obviously answer that that is water.

 

With regards to your question about relative truths. You ask how are relative view of truths different from relative truths (true view), they are different because the first is resulted from unsound speculation while the second doesn't require logic. I like coffee is not unsound speculation because you are a human being who have the ability to like. It does not require logic. Unsound speculations happens because it has standard to follow which is logic.

 

Example of unsound speculation. Piranhas live in the land. Obviously it is wrong because it doesn't follow the logical premise that fish live in the water. It is unsound speculation which is a relative view of truth (wrong view) of someone who have mental disorder. But if we say that I love piranhas is not unsound(explanation is on the top). It is relative. Others may not love piranhas.But it is not unsound because it is the result of you being a human being and it doesn't require logic because nobody can say he is wrong if he likes piranhas because that's what he likes.

How are those different?

 

No, what I mean is that relative view of truths resulted from unsound speculations are different from relative truths base from for example our taste of food, clothing etc.

Water is not just H2O though.

Water from your tap has a significantly different composition than if you get a glass from your local river or the ocean. Which one of those is water? All of them? None of them? Just H2O?

That doesn't look absolute to me. Yet another completely wrong example from randopin.

No, sorry, you seem to misunderstood me. What I mean is that all of us know that if we see a liquid in oceans, rivers, bathtubs, flowing from the faucet, etc. each individual if asked what is it will answer that that is "water". So in other words, the truth about water is not relative to everbody but absolute to everybody.

Offcourse, I know that water from the ocean compared to water from the faucet has different composition, but what I want you to see, is that in a common sense way- how people look on a liquid found in the oceans,rivers, faucet, etc.

Yes. But that's not the point. The fact that relative truths (differences of opinion) exist means that philosophy cannot always be correct.

So it depends on the perspective of an individual. That individual could be right or wrong. But what I mean is that there are really established absolute truths and relative truths of reality no matter what is the view of an individual. Meaning, it is independent on the perspective of an individual.

Example of absolute truth is the truth about water. All of us agree that water is water. Example of relative truth is our favorite food. It is relative because it depends on the taste of an individual.

See, absolute truths and relative truths exist independently. That differences of opinion happens only (imo) if we speculate unsoundly. It is different to our opinion for example of our favorite food because it really exist on ourselves.

That doesn't make sense.

 

1. There is no apparent connection between the existence of truths (whether absolute or relative) and a philosophical argument being correct or not.

 

2. If there were such a connection, then how could the existence of relative truths guarantee correctness, when different people will disagree on what is true or not.

 

3. Some philosophers argue that god exists other argue that god does not exist. According to you, because philosophy is always correct, they are both correct. But this violates a fundamental law of logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

 

 

No. I mean is that there are absolute truths and also relative truths. They are not contradicted with each other but they exist independently.

 

You tried to use the fact that there are some absolute truths to claim that therefore relativism is wrong.

 

You are now saying that there are some absolute truths, but not all truths are absolute. Therefore relativism is correct.

 

See, a good philosophical argument s one that can change your mind! Well done.

I agree with that. But what I really mean is that the definition of philosophy which is " neither correct nor incorrect" is quite mistaken. For example we know that there are some absolute truths. It is true. We also know that there are relative truths. And it is true. So we can conclude that there are really absolute truths and relative truths of reality. Since it is real so philosophy is always correct. And also philosophy is always correct as long as it is being formulated soundly which is logic based and based on proper reasoning base also on established facts to avoid incorrect philosophies.

The scientific method resulted in all the technological toys and tools used today; these developments span about 500 years of recent human history. Philosophy without science existed for millennium without understanding much about us or our environment; philosophy alone can be inept. Similarly, science is inept without data.

 

Did you mean that philosophy needs established facts? If yes then I agree with you.

If philosophy contradicts scientifically established facts, it is useless. This restricts logically where philosophy has something to say.

 

 

Therefore, for me I think that to avoid incorrect philosophy, we should philosophize soundly. In order to philosophize soundly it should be:

1. Logic based

2. Base on established facts ( facts proven by science)

You give one example of a system within which formal propositions can be defined to be true. Not really applicable to anything outside mathematics.

 

 

Why do you say that mathematical propositions are not applicable outside math? We all know that math is necessary in understanding reality like how it is being use in General Relativity. Math according to a philosopher is the language of nature.

You give a second example which is pure opinion.

 

 

That is not an opinion. It is according to wikipedia and it is true. Example of natural right is our right to live. Our right to be happy. Our right to clothing, shelter, food etc. And many more.

 

 

Definitions of beauty are not universally agreed. Not all moral and ethical choices are universal. Some people like jazz and others hate it. People disagree on what is right or wrong. Different countries have different definitions of "natural" rights.

I in some point agree with these. But that doesn't eliminate the idea that there are absololute truths.

 

 

viz "Every truth is absolute."

That is not the statement I made. What I mean is that there is absolute truth of reality. I didn't mean that every truth is absolute.

 

That is in the quantum scale which is the scale of the small. Our lives are inclined and perceive the large scale (Universe, galaxies).For me, I think we should not apply what is in the quantum level to the activities in large scale because they are different. The fact that quantum mechanics is different from large scale doesn't remove the absolute truth that exist in the large scale because we ourselves experience it.

 

Even if we consider that q.m eliminates absolute truth, there is still absolute truth. The absolute truth of quantum mechanics itself. Me, you, all of us perceive that q.m is uncertain and very different from classical mechanics.

And according to my understanding, there is no absolute truth. Therefore, your assertion is incorrect. Natural rights are a human invention and vary from place to place and from time to time.

 

 

There is absolute truth. Kindly look again my examples. Another example is our surroundings. Do you think that it just your own subjective view that the moon is round and other see it as square. Obviously not. All of us see the shape, the structure of the world the same way. Therefore there is absolute truth or objective truth. The truth which is valid in all times and all places. The moon is round for you, for me and for all humans who see it. The moon is round in Asia, Europe,Americas etc. for those who see it. Therefore, there is an absolute truth. In this case, we can't apply the philosophy of relativism because obviously it is not compatible.

 

In this idea, we see that base on facts or evidences in the surroundings, we see that, really, there are correct and incorrect philosophies.

Please excuse my philosophical knowledge in the past weeks in this forum. This forum helps me clarify what is philosophy. This enables me now to share my idea about philosophy. Philosophy as what someone said here, is neither correct nor wrong. But my idea is that, there are correct & wrong philosophies. Example of correct philosophy I want to assert is Universalism and example of wrong philosophy is Relativism. Let me explain why the first is correct contrary to the last mentioned philosophy. Universalism is correct because base on my understanding, there is what we call absolute truth of reality.According to wikipedia, when we say absolute truth, this is the truth which is valid in all times and places. In this case, it is seen as eternal or as absolute. Examples of this absolute truth are mathematics, natural rights etc.

 

This leads me to the conclusion that philosophy is important because it seeks the absolute truth provided that we speculate soundly, interpret facts properly and so we have the correct philosophy.IMO, some philosophies are wrong because some philosophers wrongly speculate and interpret facts.