The Instigator
FreeThinker35
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
petersaysstuff
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Your are a pigment of my imagination

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,100 times Debate No: 16129
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

FreeThinker35

Pro

Prove to me that you are not a pigment of my imagination.
petersaysstuff

Con

First let me start by saying that the burden of proof is on you. You are the one claiming that I am a "pigment" of your imagination thus you must prove it. If I were Pro and you were Con for this same debate the BOP would be flipped. But putting that aside I will first say that pigment is defined as " a substance that imparts black or white or a color to other materials"[1]
meaning that it is a physical thing since a substance cannot be a thought. If we follow this line of reasoning, even if I were a pigment, I would not be in your imagination seeing as imagination is "the action or process of forming such images or concepts"[2] and that is not a physical thing. Also, we can prove I am not a pigment by saying that I cannot impart colors onto other materials (without the aid of outside help). Therefore we can see I am neither a pigment nor am I in your imagination. QED.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
FreeThinker35

Pro

First of all, thank you for accepting the challenge.

I see most of your argument revolves around "pigment". I thougth you would understand what I meant by "pigment".Maybe I should rephrase to" Prove to me that you are NOT a part of my mind.

From a Solipsistic point of view, solipsism defined as "theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing"[1] I deny all materialistic existence therefore you cannot exist.You are just a part of my creative prosess.

Proof:
1. My most certain knowledge is the content of my own mind and nothing other than my mind exists.
2. Anything outside my own specific mind is unjustified.
3. The external universe and other minds cannot be known and might not exist.

The Greek presocratic sophist, Gorgias (c. 483–375 BC) quoted by the Roman skeptic Sextus Empiricus said

1.Nothing exists;
2.Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and
3.Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others.

This means that you must be a pigment of my imgaination, you are an unstable and complex part of my consciousness.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
petersaysstuff

Con

You are quite welcome :)

1) Solipsism is an unfalsifiable hypothesis and thus is not a valid theory.
a) The reason it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis is because what ever evidence to the contrary I provide, one can just say "Well that is in my mind as well." No evidence will suffice due to the nature of the argument. One cannot provide evidence that will satisfy a solipsist (yet I will try anyhow).
b) The reason this is bad is due to the fact that I can make any claim that is unfalsifiable and it will be equally as valid. For example I can claim that an Invisible Pink Unicorn exists. This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis since nothing you can do can disprove it and this is bad because it provides us no insight into the world, all it does is pose an interesting question.

2) Turn, you could be a part of my mind.
a) I can make the same claim that you are merely a "pigment" of my imagination with the same validity as you make the converse claim. The problem with this is, I assume, you would disagree and say you are your own entity and that leaves us with an infinite regression of "You're in my mind.""No you're in mine!" It solves nothing.

3) Isolation and social interaction
a) The reason there must be other organisms outside out own mind is due to the fact that we as humans are social creatures and we thrive in a social environment. Humans cannot be isolated without very specific and noticeable symptoms showing. There are many symptoms of sensory deprivation (isolation) but the most noticeable is hallucinations. When people are deprived of their senses for more than 15 minutes massive hallucinations ensue comparable to the effects of LSD.[1] Of course one could say that we have grown accustomed to these hallucinations that we wouldn't see them but that is not true seeing as when we put people in isolation they exhibit radically different behavior thus we can see if we are isolated.
Here is a quote from a BBC experiment regarding total isolation:
"Of the six volunteers, two coped well. One woman was convinced her sheets were wet. Three experienced auditory and visual hallucinations - snakes, oysters, tiny cars and zebras. After the 48 hours were complete, the same tests were conducted. The results indicated that the volunteers' ability to complete the simplest tasks had deteriorated. One subject's memory capacity fell 36% and all the subjects had trouble thinking of words beginning with the letter "F". All four of the men (neither of the two women) had markedly increased suggestibility."[2]
So here we can reach a conclusion. We can look for the symptoms of isolation and if we find them it is safe to conclude one is isolated (not necessarily the only thing that exists but just alone) yet if we do not find them in the majority of humans is it safe to conclude that we are not isolated and thus there are other creatures. And what do we see when we look at the majority of humanity, the only ones that display said symptoms are the ones we put in isolation thus we can conclude that others do exist.

4) You have not fulfilled the burden of proof. All you have said are unwarranted, unfalsifiable claims. I could say that you and I are both in the minds of the IPU with the same certainty and validity as you make your claim yet neither are falsifiable and neither prove anything thus I see no reason to vote for you seeing as you have not fulfilled your BOP so far and have proven nothing.

[1] http://www.wired.com...
[2] Total Isolation. [TV-series]. United Kingdom: BBC. 2008. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Debate Round No. 2
FreeThinker35

Pro

FreeThinker35 forfeited this round.
petersaysstuff

Con

I'm sorry to see that my opponent has forfeited but regardless I must extend. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Thaddeus 6 years ago
Thaddeus
How can one be a colour/hue of ones imagination? I'm pretty sure you mean "figment"
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
FreeThinker35petersaysstuffTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Besides unjustifiably shifting the BoP on to Con, Con successfully refuted Pro's case. His points that the solipsist view is an unfalsifiable claim and thus meaningless as well as the argument that the same claim made by anyone else would be just as valid were never refuted by Pro since he forfeited the last round. Points about sensory deprivation were more like overkill. Conduct to Con for forfeit and sources for the use of them in his rounds in support of his case (not just for definitions.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
FreeThinker35petersaysstuffTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
FreeThinker35petersaysstuffTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro shifted the BoP, did it clearly in the OP. Con demanded they take it back which they did curiously. It looks like they would have won this if the second round was not just a C