I and eye would be tragic. Either that or if he believed in everyone but himself. Your forgetting, he doesn't believe in ewe.

if you think about, the notion that we are standing still is based on observation, we are standing still at the speed of the earth.

 

therefor, reality is split in two, one reality based on observation, you personally are not moving, and the other that you are moving relative to space, because earth is moving, beginning to sound uncannily like einstien,s special theory of relativaty? thats jus a theory too!dammit!i dont know

I've dismissed solipsism with this reasoning:

 

The concept of self-awareness requires something that is not the self and with which one does not share awareness in order to define it. My inability to experience self-awareness as YOU confirms rather than denies your seperate exiatence, thereby validating the concept of reality outside one's self. Further, "I think therefore I am" carries the unspoken assumption of some stimuli to think about.

Doesn't that require either that definition determines reality, or that any given definition is immutable?

I think it's more a matter of reality defining itself; hence my verbal definition. It dosen't explain reality so much as not conflict with it.

If anything that's helpful to the concept of solopsism

if the same phenomenon can be experienced identicaly by many observers, translated into another format (text) and then reproduced using this format, it can be considered real.

not neccesarily understood!, but certainly real

YT2095 said in post #32 :

if the same phenomenon can be experienced identicaly by many observers, translated into another format (text) and then reproduced using this format, it can be considered real.

not neccesarily understood!, but certainly real

 

Observed and reproduced then.

 

Someone had to cut through

 

Though if reproduced would drop the need for multiple observers in the original step

 

But what had bothered me because of how I handle stray or deceptful sensory input, though do not need to rely on (and generally don't have) a second observer but a second data source to confirm or refute the original

 

Didn't know how to get around "proper" delusions. Can't, I reckon, unless I can somehow incorporate reproducibility as well, which I don't see how could, but don't know why I didn't connect that before either

 

In short, thanks