Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Is this a good refutation of Solipsism?

bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 12:07:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Science is a body of knowledge and a way of thinking - a way of gathering knowledge. Science can never be completely sure of anything. Nothing can. The difference is that Science is actively learning more and evolving as time goes on based on common observations. Of course, this world could be simply an illusion. However, you should assume that this is not the case. It is self-evident that I (or at least something that thinks) exist - "I think, therefore I am". I realize that this proves nothing about the outside world, but it shows that I have the ability to perceive. This means that I can make observations about the world, and that the direct observations I make should override the chance of Solipsism being accurate. Even if this world was an illusion, what about the world beneath that? The world beneath that one? If every world could be an illusion, there would be no way to distinguish from the origin of said illusion and the illusion itself. Therefore, we should assume that the perceived world that is fairly self-evident is more likely. Science takes this idea and builds upon it - it grows and supports itself on the perceived axioms of existence.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 12:50:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What do you mean about the world beneath it?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 1:11:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think that this argument is on the right track, but the bulk of it is off by a bit.

The point about science doesn't really do anything for you except waste characters. At best, scientific belief functions on a normative level, whereas arguments like solipsism operate either metaphysically (one tier above I believe) or epistemically (either two or 3 tiers above). So at best, the warrant for this is outweighed as solipsism would operate before the warrants of science.

The next thing falls to a misinterpretation of solipsism. Solipsism does not argue that we cannot perceive, but rather the only thing we can perceive is within our own personal mental/physical state. Everything else outside of it is unsure. This doesn't override anything about solipsism, because our observations can still be wrong.

The next part that questions the origin is really on track, but you're being TOO general. Refine this thought down to the mind and then you'll be onto something.

If you want we can do a debate on this, you refuting and I defending, and then after I can teach you a few good arguments against it and then we'd flip sides so you can learn to defend solipsism.

Personally, I feel that the best way to learn how an argument works to refute it is to defend it from refutation. You learn it's weak spots real fast.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
slo1
Posts: 4,332
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 3:08:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 12:07:59 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Science is a body of knowledge and a way of thinking - a way of gathering knowledge. Science can never be completely sure of anything. Nothing can. The difference is that Science is actively learning more and evolving as time goes on based on common observations. Of course, this world could be simply an illusion. However, you should assume that this is not the case. It is self-evident that I (or at least something that thinks) exist - "I think, therefore I am". I realize that this proves nothing about the outside world, but it shows that I have the ability to perceive. This means that I can make observations about the world, and that the direct observations I make should override the chance of Solipsism being accurate. Even if this world was an illusion, what about the world beneath that? The world beneath that one? If every world could be an illusion, there would be no way to distinguish from the origin of said illusion and the illusion itself. Therefore, we should assume that the perceived world that is fairly self-evident is more likely. Science takes this idea and builds upon it - it grows and supports itself on the perceived axioms of existence.

There maybe a gap between thinking and perception which may need to be closed. How can you know that your perception is caused by the "outside" or whether it is caused by your thinking?
Jacob_Apologist
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 4:06:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Problem of self-contradiction. If everything is invention of the mind, then why shouldn't the mind itself be invented by mind. Its a self-refuting end then. Why only one mind "yours" is the only ontological reality?.

It's an easily refutable illusion.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 10:17:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 4:06:35 PM, Jacob_Apologist wrote:
Problem of self-contradiction. If everything is invention of the mind, then why shouldn't the mind itself be invented by mind. Its a self-refuting end then. Why only one mind "yours" is the only ontological reality?.

It's an easily refutable illusion.

Great way to de-rail the thread by talking about something that the thread wasn't made to discuss. Someone's a genius.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 10:20:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 4:06:35 PM, Jacob_Apologist wrote:
Problem of self-contradiction. If everything is invention of the mind, then why shouldn't the mind itself be invented by mind. Its a self-refuting end then. Why only one mind "yours" is the only ontological reality?.

It's an easily refutable illusion.

Solipsism states everything is an illusion but the mind. It doesn't state absolutely everything is an illusion. (I believe that's correct)
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 10:21:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 12:07:59 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Science is a body of knowledge and a way of thinking - a way of gathering knowledge. Science can never be completely sure of anything. Nothing can. The difference is that Science is actively learning more and evolving as time goes on based on common observations. Of course, this world could be simply an illusion.

This part is completely irrelevant. As Zaradi pointed out, science operates on a normative level whereas solipsism operates on a metaphysical or epistemological level.

However, you should assume that this is not the case. It is self-evident that I (or at least something that thinks) exist - "I think, therefore I am".

All this proves is that your mind exists, not that your physical body exists. It is also flawed. S"ren Kierkegaard provides a relatively good critique. It is circular, it assumes the existence of I in order to prove "I" exists. Let's put it this way, "x" thinks, I am that "x", therefore I think, therefore I am. It prepossesses the existence of I. So the reality is, you have not even shown that the "I" exists in the first place.

Prove that something (even your mind) exists.

I realize that this proves nothing about the outside world, but it shows that I have the ability to perceive. This means that I can make observations about the world, and that the direct observations I make should override the chance of Solipsism being accurate.

Hmm? You're prepossessing the existence of the world in which you are making observations about. You still have not shown that something is in existence outside of your mind.

Even if this world was an illusion, what about the world beneath that? The world beneath that one? If every world could be an illusion, there would be no way to distinguish from the origin of said illusion and the illusion itself.

The origin of the said illusion is the mind. Epistemological solipsism holds that the existence of anything outside of the mind is unsure. (It is the only position that is undefendable and irrefutable by it's postulate).

Therefore, we should assume that the perceived world that is fairly self-evident is more likely. Science takes this idea and builds upon it - it grows and supports itself on the perceived axioms of existence.

Nah...

Now that my one post in the philosophy forum is taken care of, bye bye.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 10:22:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 10:20:28 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/12/2012 4:06:35 PM, Jacob_Apologist wrote:
Problem of self-contradiction. If everything is invention of the mind, then why shouldn't the mind itself be invented by mind. Its a self-refuting end then. Why only one mind "yours" is the only ontological reality?.

It's an easily refutable illusion.

Solipsism states everything is an illusion but the mind. It doesn't state absolutely everything is an illusion. (I believe that's correct)

Well that's not true actually.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 10:37:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 12:50:54 PM, phantom wrote:
What do you mean about the world beneath it?

If this works is an illusion, then the world that we think is causing the illusion could also be an illusion.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 10:40:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 10:37:38 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 9/12/2012 12:50:54 PM, phantom wrote:
What do you mean about the world beneath it?

If this works is an illusion, then the world that we think is causing the illusion could also be an illusion.

What's causing the illusion would be our mind, not another world.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 10:49:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 10:40:07 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/12/2012 10:37:38 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 9/12/2012 12:50:54 PM, phantom wrote:
What do you mean about the world beneath it?

If this works is an illusion, then the world that we think is causing the illusion could also be an illusion.

What's causing the illusion would be our mind, not another world.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 11:29:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 10:49:10 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/12/2012 10:40:07 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/12/2012 10:37:38 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 9/12/2012 12:50:54 PM, phantom wrote:
What do you mean about the world beneath it?

If this works is an illusion, then the world that we think is causing the illusion could also be an illusion.

What's causing the illusion would be our mind, not another world.

I was thinking more of like a brain-in-a-vat scenario.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 11:44:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 10:50:28 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
Are we talking hardcore solipsism or epistemological solipsism?

Either or.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 6:09:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 11:29:45 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 9/12/2012 10:49:10 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/12/2012 10:40:07 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/12/2012 10:37:38 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 9/12/2012 12:50:54 PM, phantom wrote:
What do you mean about the world beneath it?

If this works is an illusion, then the world that we think is causing the illusion could also be an illusion.

What's causing the illusion would be our mind, not another world.

I was thinking more of like a brain-in-a-vat scenario.

The brain in a vat still has conscious experiences and I guess you could say a mind.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2015 11:59:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let me rip this nimrod apart.

At 9/12/2012 12:07:59 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Science is a body of knowledge and a way of thinking - a way of gathering knowledge. Science can never be completely sure of anything. Nothing can.

I can be completely sure of things. A is A.

The difference is that Science is actively learning more and evolving as time goes on based on common observations. Of course, this world could be simply an illusion.

The world being an illusion is, in itself, incoherent, since the "world" is that which is, so for it to be an illusion something other than "that which is" must be so, which is ridiculous.

However, you should assume that this is not the case. It is self-evident that I (or at least something that thinks) exist - "I think, therefore I am". I realize that this proves nothing about the outside world, but it shows that I have the ability to perceive.

It only shows that you can perceive yourself. If you actually understood Descartes, you would know that he had to BS about God to get anywhere past the cogito.

This means that I can make observations about the world, and that the direct observations I make should override the chance of Solipsism being accurate.

If solipsism is accurate (it isn't, but for the sake of argument), then you can't "override it" by making observations - you would, by definition, be making observations of a solipsistic world, and to say that those can refute solipsism is nonsense.

Even if this world was an illusion, what about the world beneath that? The world beneath that one? If every world could be an illusion, there would be no way to distinguish from the origin of said illusion and the illusion itself.

This is incoherent.

Therefore, we should assume that the perceived world that is fairly self-evident is more likely.

You don't understand what "therefore" means. That doesn't follow at all. The argument for self-evidency is much different than whatever you were trying to say before.

Science takes this idea and builds upon it - it grows and supports itself on the perceived axioms of existence.

Assuming that they actually are axioms, which cannot be defended based on the arguments you've given, you goddamned fool.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz