The Instigator
Capitalistslave
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
Unstobbaple
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

Solipsism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 468 times Debate No: 99458
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Capitalistslave

Pro

This is a continuation of a previous debate that my opponent forgot about, which can be found here: http://www.debate.org...
Same rules apply. We will just open up with the arguments in this round and continue as though this is the second round of the previous debate. I'll just copy/paste my arguments:

My argument is rather simple: when it comes to the existence of anything, it relies on our senses and perception. I've never heard of anyone being able to confirm the existence of anything without their senses, or someone else's senses. Whether it's done through math, or science, etc, in order to read that scientific data, in order to conduct experiementation it requires your senses.

There are a myriad of optical illusions out there which prove that what we see is not always what is accurate. One such is Ames room which is explained here[1]. Since perception and our senses are fallible, as Ames room and many other optical illusions show, we can never be sure when our perception is telling us what exists is accurately portrayed. In fact, it could be something entirely different.

For all we know, reality could be all a simulation. There's no way we currently have to prove it isn't that I know of. Therefore, the only thing we can know with surety, is our own mind's existence, because it follows the logic that Rene Descartes stated with, "I think, therefore I am".

I contend that the only thing we can do, is believe we live in reality. We cannot prove it with 100% surety, thus we cannot claim to know anything else is true. We can have belief, but knowledge is something we can never actually have, except when it comes to one own's existence. For example, it is a belief I have that I am communicating on a debating website called debate.org, I cannot say with surety that I am for my perception can be wrong and there's no logical way to prove my perception is accurate with 100% surety.

I'll turn this to my opponent now. My opponent should provide a way we know with surety that other things exist besides one's own mind.

Source:
[1] https://www.youtube.com...
Unstobbaple

Con


All knowledge is collected by our senses.

I’ll concede this point for now.


There are a myriad of optical illusions out there.

I’ll concede that there are rare optical illusions that upon further investigation lead to rational, reality bound explanations.

For all we know, reality could be all a simulation.


I’ll agree that it’s possible that this is a simulation. Your definition of solipsism requires that there be only one mind as seen in our previous round on as this is a generous continuation of our first debate:

“Definition:


Solipsism: the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside of the mind.”




We are not 100% certain reality exists outside of our mind.

Pro’s definitions of Solipsism in no way requires that we are 100% certain that reality exists and I have not made that claim. Since Pro is making the claim that we can be more certain that our minds exist than that other minds exist. Since new thought and ideas are constantly objected to

My opponent should provide a way we know with surety that other things exist besides one's own mind.

This is a shifting of the burden of proof. In other words Pro is requiring that I prove a separate claim that I am 100% certain that the world and reality exists and this is not true. I only have to challenge his claim that it’s likely that a single mind exists as opposed to alternatives.


The Hard solipsistic position is not reasonable as it requires complex knowledge bordering omniscience.

I would have to written every piece of music every piece of art and every movie script. I like to write but music is a mystery to me. Engineering concepts are absolutely horrendous to grasp but I was able to learn many of them because of help from other minds and text books I did not initially understand and I have since forgotten a lot of what I did learn.

A solipsistic collection of minds is a lot more likely since there are other minds to explain everything from Shakespeare and Eminem to Quantum Physics and Differential equations. It’s more likely that an external universe exists and I am living in some kind of virtual reality than simply a disembodied mind which would require some kind of creator since there is no big bang theory for complexity out of nothing and this leads us to the various flaws in god arguments.

Where are these complex ideas and thoughts stored if not in my mind?


If I am the author of all scientific theories and music where is this information stored before I exercise painstaking effort to learn them? Who is tutoring and teaching me complex information that I did not previously know. A multiple mind form of solipsism is much more likely. Other minds exist to transfer share and learn new information.

The consistency of separate conclusions of multiple minds leads it to be more likely that some form of external reality exists. Multiple minds ran experiments to confirm various scientific theories are consistent and reliable for each mind as we each independently access this space. Every time multiple experiments and simplistic

100% certainty as a red herring and compared with the concept of truth.

I would say that nothing can be known with certainty including that our own mind exists as it appears.

How we identify basic everyday truths.

We use confirmation from multiple observers which is a basic form of scientific discovery [1].


How we use the scientific in everyday life and it works.

Every time we use devices which we have no personal understanding of with multiple confirmation from other minds, that often disagree, we confirm the existence of many minds. Everytime we use cell phones and airplanes without understanding the specifics as to how these devices are designed and continue to work repeatedly we verify confirmation of multiple minds as a consensus develops that multiple minds exist and confirm an objective reality.




[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 1
Capitalistslave

Pro

Quote from my opponent will be in italics, and my own quote will be bold.
Your definition of solipsism requires that there be only one mind as seen in our previous round on as this is a generous continuation of our first debate
It doesn’t state that there is only one mind, it just states that one mind if all we can know with surety. Under solipsism, there can be other minds, just we don’t know for sure that they exist.

Defending: We are not 100% certain reality exists outside of our mind. AND My opponent should provide a way we know with surety that other things exist besides one's own mind.
The definition says that the only thing we can be "sure" of is the existence of one's own mind. To know something with surety, it would mean you are 100% certain. When you took the con position, it means you believe there are other things which can be known with surety, and this does have a burden of proof with it. There is no burden of proof when it comes to proving that we can't know things with surety, plus I provided examples of how our perception is wrong, so it means the burden of proof would now be on you to prove that our senses are correct when looking at our world or for determining other minds exist. There cannot be an assumption that our senses are correct, you need something to verify that your senses are correct. Thus, you need to prove that our senses can be trusted in determining reality.
I only have to challenge his claim that it’s likely that a single mind exists as opposed to alternatives.
Which you need to provide evidence for these alternative minds. It should not just be assumed that there are alternative minds. This requires proof as well. You could argue that other ideas come from other people, but how do I know I didn't come up with that idea, and my mind decided to attribute it to this image of a person I see? Con would need to prove that everything isn't just a product of my mind. There is no evidence that I know of that other things are not a product of my mind.

I only have to challenge his claim that it’s likely that a single mind exists as opposed to alternatives.
This seems to misunderstand what the definition of solipsism is, as well as my own position. Again, it doesn’t state that likely only your own mind exists, alternatives are possible in solipsism, they just can not be accepted to be known to exist with surety, according to it. When you say “likely” I think this is misrepresenting solipsism. One can be solipsist, for example, and believe that it is unlikely the case that only your own mind exists, they just don’t claim to know it with surety that other minds do exist. In other words, to believe it is unlikely that only your own mind exists, also means you believe it is likely that other minds do. You can believe it is either likely or unlikely that other minds exist and still be a solipsist provided that you don’t believe it with surety. Surety would be believing there is 100% probability that something exists.

This is why to disprove solipsism, you need to provide a way we can know with 100% surety that something else other than your own mind exists.

I would have to written every piece of music every piece of art and every movie script. I like to write but music is a mystery to me. Engineering concepts are absolutely horrendous to grasp but I was able to learn many of them because of help from other minds and text books I did not initially understand and I have since forgotten a lot of what I did learn.
The mind is a complex thing. You can, for example, forget something, but it would still be stored in your mind somewhere. It is, therefore, possible that you have omniscience, or close to it, but everything is stored somewhere deep inside the brain, and not readily available. Instead, it can be possible the mind creates what appears to be another person, or information that someone else made, when it was really in your mind to begin with.

Where are these complex ideas and thoughts stored if not in my mind?
It would be in the mind, as said before, there are only so many things that the brain will allow you to recollect at any given time, however everything you’ve ever touched, seen, smelled, etc would still be stored in your brain even if you can’t recollect it.

I would say that nothing can be known with certainty including that our own mind exists as it appears.
If you believe that, then you would mostly agree with solipsism, except that you also think one’s own mind cannot be sure to exist. So, I suppose then, since you believe that, that would still be a stance against solipsism, since solipsism states the only thing which can be known is one’s own mind, but you’re saying even that cannot be known. Perhaps you should argue this. I argue, using the same logic from Rene Descartes of “I think, therefore, I am” to be reason to believe one’s own mind exists.
Unstobbaple

Con

If I’d known Pro’s offer continue this debate was charitable I would not have accepted this debate.


Pro still has not offered a definition of ‘mind’ or added any proof that allows us to be sure it exists.


Without any evidence that his clicking fluctuating stream of competing memes is anything like a definition of mind how could we be sure with 100% certainty. Since Pro has the burden of proof and has not even presented a description of what he is 100% sure exists so his position fails by default.


Pro’s Solimsism Definition

“As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure.”


Since new information is injected into this mind all the time from unknown sources how is the information in this ‘mind’ 100% certain? It obviously is completely unreliable given Pro’s position that this information is suspect.


“To know something with surety, it would mean you are 100% certain.”


I’d disagree that we can be 100% certain of anything and this is not relevant here.

Pro misinterprets my position suggesting that I am asserting that an outside reality exists with with surety. By doing this he dropped my legitimate arguments that it is more likely that there is an outside reality and other minds than his position that only our minds (whatever the hell that is) exists.


He continues by saying, “there cannot be an assumption that our senses are correct, you need something to verify that your senses are correct. Thus, you need to prove that our senses can be trusted in determining reality.” This proves my point. Our information and the memes that make up our mind are continually coming from an outside source. Who or what told Pro that he had a mind describing some mysterious definition and told him all the facts and ideas stored in it? If senses are unreliable so is everything he knows about minds or their existence.


Pro continues to suggest I offer an argument that I already have and that he dropped.


Some argument that the mind is learning new things all the time through these unreliable senses.

“You could argue that other ideas come from other people, but how do I know I didn't come up with that idea, and my mind decided to attribute it to this image of a person I see? Con would need to prove that everything isn't just a product of my mind. There is no evidence that I know of that other things are not a product of my mind.”


Again, this is exactly backasswords. Pro has the burden to prove that a single mind exists. He has simply assumed this without even providing a definitions for minds. To me this mind looks like a number of competing little minds but that’s another debate.



Pro is trying to hold me to a definition of solipsism not represented in his opening argument: http://www.debate.org...


His claim was clearly that our mind exists with surety and all other minds are unsure. Not only has he not offered any evidence that suggests that our minds exist (failing to uphold his burden of proof) but he has also hedged to a point where he is suggesting that other minds are likely which contradicts his round 1 claim in the link above and supports the Con position.


It is, therefore, possible that you have omniscience, or close to it, but everything is stored somewhere deep inside the brain, and not readily available.”


Pro concedes that omniscience is a prerequisite for his position conceding my objection to his case.


except that you (Con) also think one’s own mind cannot be sure to exist... since solipsism states the only thing which can be known is one’s own mind, but you’re saying even that cannot be known. Perhaps you should argue this.”


I did and Con has conceded it is a valid objection to the position again conceding the debate to me.


-

Pro offers no arguments to support the idea that our mind exists without providing a definition or explaining why we have any certainty that it exists. He essentially is assuming his position as the default and thereby fails to provide any evidence or in any way fulfill his burden of proof except a rene quote that he does not explain again simply assuming the vague reference to the ‘thinks’ from some guy named Rene confirms his position. He drops arguments I provided then concedes the objections at every turn.
Debate Round No. 2
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: KnightOfDarkness// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro has more convincing arguments for the following reasons: Con conceded several of pro's main points, such as how knowledge is collected by our senses and that our senses are fallible. They also agreed that everything could be simulation. Con claimed pro didn't offer any arguments for a mind existing, but they offered the logic by Rene Descartes of "I think therefore I am" and never explained the flaw behind this logic. They simply ignored it. Con also never proved that there are other minds with surety, which is what would have been needed for their position.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter clearly assesses several arguments made by both debaters, at least to some degree. As such, the vote is sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by Unstobbaple 1 year ago
Unstobbaple
I'd definitely say Knightofobvious scum voted. I flagged it and the members I mentioned. I'll ask for a few voters I think could be objective and you do the same.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
Do you want to report them? I mean, I personally would like more people to vote for debates. I can't tell you how many times I've had a debate tie because of few or no people voting. It's really aggravating with how few people vote on this site, probably because of how strict it is.
Posted by Unstobbaple 1 year ago
Unstobbaple
KnightofDarkness joined 7 hours ago likely to vote for this debate. All accounts he entered a debate with had two quick rounds to enable a scum vote and updated or joined within the last 12 hours making them suspect. Lame as fk multi-guy(s):

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by 3RU7AL 1 year ago
3RU7AL
I just had an interesting discussion about solipsism as well...

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
Suggestion: In future don't call attention to conduct in another debate, instead just repost what was in the original, then proceed from there (and have airmax delete the original)
Posted by Unstobbaple 1 year ago
Unstobbaple
Damn, mafia is engrossing I will post.
Posted by Unstobbaple 1 year ago
Unstobbaple
Cool, I have a framework worked out I just need some time to flesh out my thoughts. I've been getting into mafia games and my OCD is firing hard on that.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by KnightOfDarkness 1 year ago
KnightOfDarkness
CapitalistslaveUnstobbapleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has more convincing arguments for the following reasons: Con conceded several of pro's main points, such as how knowledge is collected by our senses and that our senses are fallible. They also agreed that everything could be simulation. Con claimed pro didn't offer any arguments for a mind existing, but they offered the logic by Rene Descartes of "I think therefore I am" and never explained the flaw behind this logic. They simply ignored it. Con also never proved that there are other minds with surety, which is what would have been needed for their position.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
CapitalistslaveUnstobbapleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: 1. The word is certainly, not surteny or any such alternate spelling (not awarding points for that S&G issue, but noting it to avoid it repeating). 2. Pro's own argument refers to storing things in the brain, which gives credit to a bodily existence. 3. Pro argues maybes about one of us being god (I suggest if doing this again, argue that the voter is the single mind), but maybes don't support any certainty. 4 Con wisely argued that our mind being the only thing to exist is less likely than another more intelligent/creative mind(s), which blow apart the argument for certainty of our own existence. Pro dropped this, and tried to tell pro what he should have (and did) argue. It wasn't a no contest, but it was not much of one.