alt_f13 Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 I and eye would be tragic. Either that or if he believed in everyone but himself. Your forgetting, he doesn't believe in ewe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksmeesh Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geckopelli Posted October 22, 2003 Author Share Posted October 22, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Doesn't that require either that definition determines reality, or that any given definition is immutable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geckopelli Posted October 23, 2003 Author Share Posted October 23, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 If anything that's helpful to the concept of solopsism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishMish Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now